Orders Of The Day

Supply

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1929

Class Vi

Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."

4.0 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton)
This Supplementary Estimate represents a part of agricultural policy which is of very great importance, and, if it were in order, we might dwell upon many aspects of the sugar subsidy policy which are of very great interest, for the area under sugar beet cultivation has now reached a point which makes it a matter of national importance. Indeed, it recalls the time when the country was deeply concerned with the initiation of sugar-beet growing in France, and the Debate in which Mr. Pitt took part more than 100 years ago, and, on a notable occasion, declaimed: "Mr. Speaker, who now dares to laugh at sugar?" Our own sugar policy has now reached somewhat comparable importance, but I should be called to order if I dwelt further upon the general aspects of that policy. I must confine myself to the causes which give rise to this Supplementary Estimate. A Supplementary Estimate in connection with the sugar subsidy is no novelty. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me at the Ministry, whom I am glad to welcome back from his travels, on no less than three occasions had to ask for a Supplementary Estimate—in 1926, in 1927 and again in 1928. The reason on this occasion is as before—the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of forecasting in January what will be the yield of the crop which will require the Estimate for the coming year. The crop itself is not  sown, perhaps, even till May, and half a dozen factors make it extremely uncertain as to what will be the result. I should be, perhaps, in order in dwelling for a moment on the nature of the factors which affect the final figure. You pay a subsidy on the amount of actual sugar which results from the beet grown, and you therefore depend, in the first place, on the acreage, and, in the second place, on the yield. Both of those factors are highly problematical. Take first the acreage. It is now mainly the subject of contract between the growers and the factories, but not entirely. Sometimes new contracts are entered into as late even as April. The increase in the acreage is very noticeable. In 1924, when the subsidy began, the acreage in this country was 22,000. Last year—the year with which we are now dealing—it was 230,000. In the coming year it will be, at all events, 315,000 or more. That represents a very welcome burden on the Exchequer. The majority of these contracts are for three years, and that gives an element of certainty, but in the course of the three years in which the subsidy runs at certain levels, new contracts are formed. There may be, therefore, this year contracts for two years, or, later on, for one year. After three years, again, the subsidy falls to the level of the final year. Additional contracts, as the year proceeds, are made by farmers, and they are affected by the results of the last year's growing and also by the success or failure of other crops. For instance, the potato crop in the Fens may lead a man to wish to make a different contract, and the contracted acreage may, of course, fall through the failure of the crop to germinate in the spring, or it may fail too late to permit of resowing. Therefore, you cannot foretell what is going to be the contracted area. When we come to the yield, the uncertainty must be even greater. The amount of beet is concerned and also the yield in sugar content, and both of these are affected by the weather. In 1927, the yield was 6.45 tons per acre, and, to show the great variation which occurs, in 1926 it was no less than 8.63 tons. When you come to the content, you get a similar variation. In 1927, the yield was 16.1 per cent. and in 1928 it was 17.3. Consequently, the general result in yield varies to this extent, that in 1927 it was a  matter of 1,828 lbs. of sugar per acre compared with 2,654 in 1926. The causes of variation are, on the whole, those which affect all crops—drought and wet, lack of sunshine and sometimes frost, even in a more marked degree, because the present season was affected very materially by the prolonged frost nearly a year ago which produced an extremely favourable seed-bed and led to a good crop. Thus, on the whole, the variation of crops has amounted to as much as 826 lbs. of white sugar to the acre, and that, at the present subsidy of 13s. per cwt., on an acreage of 200,000, which has in fact been greatly exceeded, means a difference of £1,000,000 in the subsidy due from the State to the factories. The 1929 Estimate was based on information received from the factory companies last January. The contracts then were for 205,000 acres, but the acreage proved to be 230,000. The highest content had been up to then 17.3 per cent., and the yield had been eight tons on a rough average. Therefore, the Estimate was put down at a probable figure of £3,000,000. The sequel shows an unusual degree of variation. The factories in the course of the early spring embarked on a very active campaign, and their propaganda succeeded in bringing in more growers. The weather, not only in regard to the early frost, but in regard to the abnormal degree of sunshine in the summer, proved to be specially favourable, and, although the drought retarded the crop, the sugar content outbalanced that factor, and in October a very interesting thing occurred. When the beet might be expected to stop growing, there was a prolonged period of wet and warm weather, which again started an active growth, and that growth actually continued right on to January, until near the end of the manufacturing season.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
It increased the sugar?

Mr. BUXTON
It increased the bulk. In December the factories were invited to give as final an estimate as they could, and their estimates amounted to £950,000, which again proved wrong. The yield per acre of white sugar reached the record figure of 2,810 lbs. The yield in tons has been 8.65, which, although still below the Continental  average of probably about 10 tons, at which, I hope, we may some day arrive, is still a high yield, while the content has been 17.7 per cent. The December Estimate, therefore, was considerably under the mark, but it had to be printed before Christmas, because it was intended to take the Estimate on the first day of this Session, that is to say, on a day very much earlier than has been possible in former years, and before Christmas it was not possible to arrive at anything more accurate than we did. I think I have given sufficient explanation of the reason for the increase and for the change which took place at a late date. Perhaps, Mr. Young, you would allow me to express the satisfaction which I feel as the Minister who took the first step towards bringing this Act into existence. I feel that we are entitled to congratulate ourselves on the increased efficiency which has come about in the course of these years in the production of sugar beet. I myself always felt that by far the most important justification for this expensive experiment, and the chief value that would lie in it, was in its educative value towards better crops, and the effect has been very marked in the efforts of the various parties concerned, the Ministry, the county agricultural machinery, the county organisers in particular, while the factory companies themselves have been very busy, and the farmers, both organised and individuals, have thrown themselves into the business. Undoubtedly, the standard of farming generally over a very large area has been affected. The counties have been in touch with the companies to a marked degree. They have a corps of trained organisers who have worked with the county organisers. They visit every farm which grows for the factory; they are able to give advice, and the whole system amounts to a kind of extension course for the growers. They advise also on the preparation of the soil and as to the organisation of labour. There has been a great advance in the use of implements specially designed for this crop and that I think is a matter of very great importance. I find that the Cambridge University Report on the sugar-beet industry, from the agricultural point of view, records the very wide adoption of better implements. Those who have attended agricultural  shows will remember the extraordinarily interesting implements designed for sugar-beet cultivation alone which have been shown. It is recorded that up to two years ago, on an average, 1s. 6d. per acre had been expended on better implements and if that is extended over the whole acreage it represents a figure of something like £15,000. That has not only meant better cultivation but has added to the turnover of the implement manufacturers and has meant the employment of more labour. A great advance has been made in encouraging farmers to use deeper ploughing. They recognise the value of the crop in this respect and they have largely used lime dressing—which they had rather neglected previously—and the effect on succeeding crops is now more widely recognised. A very small grower in Norfolk was telling me of the extraordinary effect which this crop had on his wheat crop, not in the next year after the beet had been grown, but three years after the beet in the course of a four year rotation. He was perfectly amazed at the direct money value which he got even at the present price of wheat as a result of growing about four acres of beet. I think we may record that a new outlook has been introduced by the subsidy policy, which possibly might not have come about in any other way—not even by the active educational work of the various bodies concerned in this matter. A lot of good too, arises from the fact that the farmers are being brought into touch with business organisations of a different kind from those to which they have been accustomed. They are coming to use more machinery and to recognise the value in general of combining together for a purpose akin to marketing. What he learns in connection with beet growing the farmer naturally tends to apply to other branches of his work. He is also beginning to use more freely the dry pulp which the factories at first were obliged to sell abroad and he is developing its use as fodder. It would not be in order on this occasion if I were to go into the direct benefit to the farmers in the price of the crop which they have been enabled to grow over a large part of the country, because that is not one of the causes of the unexpected increase in this Estimate but obviously over an area of perhaps 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres  the subsidy policy has saved the situation for arable farming in the last few years. The increase is such that the acreage affected in what may be called the sugar counties is probably a quarter of the area of those counties. It is a debatable point as to how much acreage is affected by the growing of sugar-beet on any particular farm. I remember asking Lord Ailwyn who knew a great deal on this subject, both as a Minister and a Norfolk farmer, what he thought was the average acreage affected. He thought that a four course man roughly grew half his root crops and therefore it might be said that eight times as much land as the actual beet growing land, was affected by the fact that there was any beet being grown at all. At all events the area affected and the number of men affected are very considerable and very satisfactory. The educational value of the method is one of the reasons why we have to come for this increased Estimate and it naturally follows that employment has been affected as regards the men on the land, the men in the factories and the other industries concerned. I hope I have now given a sufficient explanation of the Estimate.

Mr. GUINNESS
Before coming to the details of the Estimate I should like to say a word about the brief reference made by the right hon. Gentleman to the general question of a sugar beet subsidy. I know it is out of order to pursue the subject in any detail but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has claimed a certain special merit because he was the Minister of Agriculture when this subsidy system was—I think his word were—put into force.

Mr. BUXTON
Initiated.

Mr. GUINNESS
I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make very much the same claim on former occasions. Sometimes it has been at a convivial gathering where I have already had my say, and where, in any case, it would not have been tactful to raise these political controversies. But there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman by repeated pats on his own back is gradually striving to build up a legend that the sugar beet subsidy has been created by his party. I know that the right hon. Gentleman values this system as well as I do, but I must remind him of  the facts. I will come to his party's record in a, moment. But what about this claim that he is really responsible for the subsidy? Surely we had a subsidy long before the right hon. Gentleman was last in his present office. A subsidy was granted in an indirect form in 1922, of 25s. 8d. on a cwt. of sugar and the change was made necessary because the Government of the right hon. Gentleman swept away that benefit by their alteration in the level of the Sugar Duty. It was only after the most strenuous efforts by hon. Members on this side of the House like the hon. Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope), the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), and after many months of anxiety that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was converted to the necessity of continuing this benefit in some form. When the Bill was introduced by us in the following year the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was not a question of giving a sugar beet subsidy so much as of bringing to an end the enormous subsidy which had already been in existence and which he condemned. I do not want to enter into invidious questions as to who is responsible but as the right hon. Gentleman, time after time, puts forward the claim that the country owes this system to his party I am bound to point out that what his party did was to smash the old system of a heavier subsidy and that as the result of a long process of propaganda and conversion, conducted from the Conservative side, they eventually agreed to a smaller measure of benefit which was embodied in the following year in the Act passed by the Conservative Government.

Mr. BUXTON
Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that subject may I say that if he thinks that I have any desire to claim any excessive or exclusive merit he is exaggerating the case. I certainly have no desire to claim more than my share of credit. What I desired to point out was that the system to which I was referring was entirely new and was, I think, introduced originally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924. The previous system it is true gave an advantage, but it had not succeeded in producing factories or in pro  ducing growers on any considerable scale. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the system, in its present form, was initiated by the Labour Government and we did not differ at all from the Conservative Government which followed us, as to the merits of the system as best designed to meet the case

Mr. GUINNESS
I shall come to that point in a moment, but I am quite in order at this moment in reminding the Committee of the record of the party-opposite. Before I leave the general question let me say that I do not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not a very enthusiastic supporter of sugar beet. I only wish to pin him down to the facts, and the facts are that the sugar beet subsidy was only given originally as the result of efforts made by hon. Members on this side. It is quite true that we had not 19 factories in 1924. Naturally an industry of this kind cannot burst out into full vigour at once. It is necessary to go through a period of experiment, and during the three years before the abolition of the higher level of subsidy three factories had come into existence, proving the possibility of the industry being run on a satisfactory basis within this country. Let me come to what is more strictly in order. It is very refreshing to have a Supplementary Estimate on this subject introduced by a right hon. Gentleman representing the Socialist party. As he reminds us we have had a good many Debates on Supplementary and Excess Votes in the last few years and the right hon. Gentleman was very fair in the way in which he put the case or the excuse for rather loose estimating in this matter. As he said, it is quite impossible to estimate 12 months ahead in regard to sugar beet. You do not know the area; you do not know the yield; you do not know the sugar content, and to give an example of how the demands upon the subsidy fund must vary, I mention my own experience. In the sugar beet season last but one, I grew 30 acres of sugar beet in Sussex. I did the same in the season just ended. This year I have a cheque from the factories for more than twice the amount of the year before, simply because the season was much more favourable. Although our methods of cultivation were the same we got more than double the crop and almost the same  sugar content. Of course, it is impossible, even in December, to know what the demand upon the fund is likely to be. Perhaps the most enlightening example of the difficulty of forecasting was in 1927, when I asked for a Supplementary Vote of £900,000, based on the then prospect, in December, of the output of sugar. In fact, we did not use one penny of that amount. I am rather glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had to amend his Estimate on this occasion, because otherwise we might have heard something from him as to our looseness in forecasting. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty, which is peculiar to a Socialist Minister of Agriculture, in moving such a Vote, because there is no doubt that the opposition of his party has steadily grown, since he was last in office, to this policy of a subsidy on beet sugar. When we passed the original Act, in 1925, there were 37 Socialists who voted against it on Third Reading, including two Cabinet Ministers. We had a Supplementary Estimate at the end of 1927, in the Division on which 101 of the Opposition opposed it, including two very prominent Members of the previous Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). If the Socialists were so convinced of the benefits of a subsidy, if they agreed to it in the Socialist Cabinet, is it not a little surprising that these pillars of the Socialist party not only should have voted against the original Bill, but year by year should have voted against these Supplementary Estimates? In the following year we had another Vote, and on that occasion, curiously enough, there was again a minority of 101, in which were 82 Socialists, and the two right hon. Gentlemen whom I have mentioned were then reinforced by the Leader of the party, the present Prime Minister, in the Division Lobby. Of course, this puts the Minister of Agriculture in a very difficult position, and I do most fully sympathise with him. He must find it very difficult to reconcile many of his opinions on agriculture with what members of his party say and have said. On the occasions of these Divisions on Supplementary Estimates, the difficulty was solved by the right hon. Gentleman's  absence, and he did not appear in the Division lists at all. But I am convinced that my hon. Friends on this side do not wish to jeopardise this very valuable industry by trying to score any party triumph in the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman needs it, we will help to save him from his friends. This industry has been carried on on the faith of definite promises. It is unthinkable that those promises should be broken, and whatever may be the action of the numerous Members opposite who year by year have voted against these Supplementary Estimates, we, on our side, will do all that we can to help the industry and to see that the State carries out its obligations in this matter.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
I am not in any way going to oppose this Supplementary Estimate, but I should like to point out to the Committee that it must be a question of grave concern, because this is the last time when the question of beet sugar will be debated in this House before the final contracts are made between the growers and the factories for the last lap of the beet sugar subsidy. Might I remind the Committee that on a similar occasion in 1927 the present President of the Board of Trade clamoured for an inquiry into the beet sugar subsidy, and might I to-day, humbly, from this back bench, echo his clamour? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture six months ago, in answer to a question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), promised that he was going to give us the result of an inquiry into which his office was going. I submit that it is of the greatest importance that the result of that inquiry should have been ready at the present time and in the hands of Members of the Committee. Although we have had from the Minister a most interesting disquisition and every good reason for this Supplementary Estimate, yet I feel that we are not sufficiently aware of the difficulties which arise in the working and incidence of this beet sugar subsidy, both on the agricultural side and on the manufacturing side. After all, the reason for the granting of this subsidy has been that it has been desired to promote a benefit for agriculture and a permanent growth in this country of a new industry, and  we are only justified in voting for this Supplementary Estimate if it goes some way towards satisfying these conditions. If we look into the agricultural statistics—those of 1928–29, because, although the Minister has given us later figures, the only figures that I have been able to reach have been those for the preceding year—we find that the average price paid for beet was 52s. per ton, and the average yield of washed beet per acre was 7.7 tons. The grower's return per acre, therefore, amounted to £20. In East Anglia, which is the part of the country in which I am more particularly interested, as is also the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, the cost to the grower per acre was £21 8s. 4d., and this is without allowing any interest on capital, or money for the farmer's own remuneration. What a contrast if we look to the factory reports. There we find that the average trading profit was 23 per cent. and that their net profit, that is to say, their profit which went to dividend and into reserve, amounted to 11½ per cent. Now, if we turn to the prices which the factories paid to the agriculturist—and this is most important, if we consider the survival of the industry, which is, after all, our aim and object when we are voting for this Estimate—we shall see that the Cantley factory paid the grower £21 6s. 8d. per acre, that is to say, roughly the cost to the farmer in growing the sugar beet, but this factory paid a dividend of 20 per cent., which amounted to £4 14s. an acre. As regards the Ipswich factory, that paid a dividend of 12½ per cent., or £4 6s. per acre profit, but only £19 13s. 6d. was paid to the farmer. I do not want to burden the Committee with many figures, but I must allude to that factory which, for political and selfish reasons, interests me most. I allude to the factory at Ely, which, I am glad to say, was in some measure more generous to the grower. It paid him £22 15s. an acre, which gave him a profit of 27s.—

The CHAIRMAN
I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument, because I do not think the Department can in any way interfere with the profits of these various factories. What he says might be a good reason, if the question of  policy was coming up, to urge against the policy, but at the moment the subsidy is settled, and we are only arguing as to the necessity for granting an increased amount of subsidy.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
I submit that I am mainly raising points which were raised on a similar issue by the present President of the Board of Trade and by the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on a previous similar occasion, and I am only trying to prove that it is worth while our voting this Supplementary Estimate mainly if it is conducive to establishing in this country an industry which will survive and which will help the agricultural and the industrial well-being of this country. I cannot prove my point unless I show that the profits are distributed in such a manner that the agriculturist is not getting the encouragement that he should. As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry is given the widest powers under the Act, and it is those powers that I am asking the Government to exert. I am urging the Government to fulfil one of its promises. I am asking the Minister to fulfil one of the many promises which he has made to the poor deluded agriculturist. He has promised him that he would hold an inquiry into the beet sugar industry, and that he would know what the profits of the factory were, and how much he himself was likely to gain from growing this new crop in the ensuing years. That is really the crux of the matter. Unless we know that this industry is going to live, that it is going to be of benefit to this country and to the agriculturist, I appeal to the Minister that it is only if it is of that value that it is worth our while to vote this subsidy. I am not in any way against the subsidy—I should dislike and hate the Committee to believe that I was—but I want the subsidy to be properly administered, and I am only prepared to vote in favour of this extension of the subsidy, because that is what we are asked to do, if I can be assured that the Committee, the public at large, and more particularly the grower will be given the information that they require. The subsidy has only a few more years to run. In 1934 it will die, and I do not believe that whoever happens to be  Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time will shed any crocodile tears over its demise. The next four years will decide whether this Measure will be buried in oblivion, unwept, unhonoured and unsung, or whether it will be given the decent obsequies which are deserved by every good public servant. I will not hazard a guess as to its revival, but I want once more to press the Government to give us as soon as possible the result of this inquiry. At the last election, I was again and again asked in my constituency, where sugar beet plays a very important part, what my opinion was on the subsidy, and on every occasion I said that what was required was a diligent inquiry into the incidence of the Act, and into the profits and how they are distributed. My presence here to-day shows that the policy which I advocated met with some measure of success, and in that constituency, where the sugar beet industry plays a preponderant part, it was almost universally accepted. The future of the beet sugar industry, on which the Minister dwelt at some length, is entirely dependent on the policy which the Government adopt, and on the policy which is adopted by the factories.

The CHAIRMAN
The question of the policy of the Government does not come into consideration at the moment. The subsidy has been decided and this Supplementary Estimate is for an increased amount in the subsidy owing to increased production.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
I was only trying to say a few words on what had been said by the Minister. Both the Minister and the late Minister of Agriculture covered themselves with laurels because there was a subsidy—

The CHAIRMAN
It is true that the Minister claimed that he was responsible for its initiation, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) claimed his share of the credit, but I do not think that we need discuss that.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the result of a full inquiry in order that we shall know what we are voting on, and in order that the grower of beet shall know what he can expect in future. It  is only with our eyes fixed on the survival of the industry for the benefit of the country and of the agricultural industry that we shall be justified in voting for this Estimate to-day.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL
While in sympathy with the holding of an inquiry concerning profits, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying some words to support this Supplementary Estimate. The story of the growth of the sugar-beet industry makes a most romantic chapter in the industrial history of this country. The subsidy has enabled a new industry to be established, and I support it on account of the benefit that it has brought both to the farmer and to the agricultural labourer in those counties where the beet-sugar factories exist. I went over a beet-sugar factory a short while ago. I have been over many factories, and it seemed to me that the beet-sugar factory was a revelation of economy and efficiency. The Minister of Agriculture has given figures concerning the growth of sugar beet in Great Britain. Whereas in 1924 there were only 22,000 acres under beet, there are now 230,000. If I give one county, it will bring home the benefit of the factories to those counties in which they have been established. In Shropshire in 1924 there were only 99 acres under beet; to-day there are no less than 10,890 acres under cultivation. The subsidy has been of benefit not only because of the cultivation of the land which has resulted, but because of the added workers in industry and in agriculture through the beet-sugar industry. In all the factories, 8,500 men are employed; and in the one factory in Shropshire there are 380 men. The number of extra men employed during the campaign throughout the country in agricultural districts is 22,000; in Shropshire the number is 750. That does not, however, tell the whole story of the added labour which has been employed in the counties where the beet-sugar factories are established, because there are a large number of farmers who were in a depressed condition, and would have had to dismiss labourers if the factories had not been established. Therefore, we have to remember that the number of extra men who have been kept on the land through the establishment of these  factories is far greater than the number actually registered. The number of extra men employed in the factories, again, does not tell the whole story, because it was a condition of the subsidy that 75 per cent. of the machinery of the factories should be manufactured in Great Britain. That means, therefore, a large number of unseen men extra employed manufacturing the machinery. I am not going to enter into the controversy as to whether the beet-sugar factories were due to the agency of Members on this side or on the other side of the House; whoever was responsible, they have brought a great benefit in added labour to the country. Farmers to whom I have spoken are enthusiastic about the sugar-beet industry. Moreover, it has made them look with favour on the idea of stabilisation of prices. The noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) asked a few minutes ago whether farming pays. When that question is asked, I always think that you might as well ask, "Does racing pay? Does gambling pay?" because the farmer, so far as wheat is concerned, never knows what he is going to get; when he sows his crop, it is just a gamble because of fluctuating prices.

Viscount WOLMER
Why did the hon. Lady promise at the last Election that farming must be made to pay?

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL
If the Labour Government is in for a long period, farming will be made to pay.

Viscount WOLMER
Will racing pay too?

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL
This subsidy has made the farmer look with a far kinder eye on the idea of stabilisation than ever before. As a result of the beet sugar factories, we have an eight weeks' supply of sugar in this country. There are 19 factories in Great Britain, and if it were possible without a subsidy to increase them, the time might come when we would be self-sufficient in sugar supplies. I am glad to say these few words in support of the subsidy, because of the excellent effect it has had in Shropshire, and because I am sure that it has brought a lasting benefit to agriculture in this country.

Mr. CHRISTIE
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the finish of the most successful campaign which we have had in this country. I am not concerned as to who should be crowned with laurels; the satisfactory thing is that we have people in every party saying what an excellent thing the subsidy has been. That is a very fine augury for the right hon. Gentleman's Commission which is now inquiring into agriculture. If he can only get an agreed policy for this unfortunate industry, it will be much more likely to have a chance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) talked about the apparently large sums which he received for his sugar beet this year and also on the fact that the size of the Supplementary Estimate might suggest that the farmer is getting a tremendous lot out of the subsidy. Hon. Members ought to remember that the cultivation of sugar beet is a very expensive business. They should remember also that the use of pulp is growing very rapidly, and that the grower of sugar beet at the present day is relying a great deal more on sugar beet pulp, and growing much less in the way of ordinary root crops. The farmers in Norfolk are relying more and more on sugar beet, and giving up other root crops almost entirely. When Members consider the terms for growing sugar beet, they must take into consideration that the farmer has to buy back the pulp with which to feed his cattle during the winter. 5.0 p.m. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds told us the results that he had obtained, and I will give my results on a practically similar acreage. I was looking through them the other day, and I found that after I had paid all the costs, and paid for the pulp, which it was necessary for me to buy to make up for the fact that I had displaced my ordinary root crops, I had literally nothing coming in, except that I had got my pulp for nothing, and the valuable sugar beet tops also. I am not grumbling at all; I think it is a very good bargain. I have enough excellent food for my cattle and a valuable by-product in the tops. If Members realised that more, this large Supplementary Estimate would go more easily through Committee. I suppose it would not be possible for the Minister to give us any reassurance as to the future. I find that everybody is very worried as  to what will happen next year, and I honestly believe that if he could see his way to tell the farmers that he is going to stand by them after the end of this year it would be most welcome news. Perhaps I had better not say more on that point, as I see the Chairman is rising; and I will finish by saying that I do congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and that I hope that the last year of the subsidy at this rate will be even more successful than the present one.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
I do not propose to make any comments on the claim of the former Minister of Agriculture or the present Minister of Agriculture with regard to the paternity of this very beneficial scheme. If we are to accept the statements of both of them, it is obvious that it has had a polyandrous paternity, and that both are entitled to credit for it. But as one who knows this particular industry very intimately, I do wish to say that I am very grateful to the party opposite and to the present Minister of Agriculture for the enlightened way in which they have treated this question. When one thinks of their general obscurantism in most economic subjects, this is a very welcome ray of light, and I can only hope that they may be the first to jump the claim of the new economic policies which are penetrating to the minds of the electors and which, when they are given effect to, are going to do so much to resuscitate the industries of our land and to solve that present insoluble problem which is dragging the Lord Privy Seal into the abyss. I think the hon. Lady the Member for the Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) very effectually answered the somewhat plaintive speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). He told us how he got into Parliament by doing his best to disturb what, to use the language of the late Mr. Montague, I may call the apathetic contentment of the fanner, by suggesting to the latter that he was not getting his "hare of the subsidy. But when the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division tells us that she finds the farmers wildly enthusiastic for the sugar-beet subsidy, and when we hear that the acreage is growing, we can realise that, after all, there cannot be very much wrong with the adjustment. Of course, if a candidate for Parliament  tells the electorate that he thinks he can get them more than they are getting now, be will not only get votes but he will also arouse a certain amount of discontent in them, and I am rather sorry that he should have come here to-day to disturb the harmony with his effort to redeem his election promises. It is all very well to talk about the farmers getting so much per cent. and the factories getting so much per cent. There is a certain type of economic mind which thinks that the only industries entitled to any credit are those which are run un-profitably, and that those which show good dividends and active and careful management should be subjected to penalising taxation—with a view to encouraging them to further developments! There is an essential difference between the beet-sugar factory and the farmer. The farmer has his land and he gets his price for his sugar-beet, and if he is not satisfied that sugar-beet is the best crop to grow he can grow turnips or potatoes or any other crop he chooses. He does not risk the capital and the skill which have been required to put up the factory. If the farmer ceased to grow sugar-beet, the factory would become so much scrap iron and useless buildings, and the company would risk a total loss. The erection of a factory entails an enormous expenditure. A factory costs well over £'250,000 and may run up to nearly £400,000—an immense sum; and the only way in which factory owners could be persuaded to undertake this risk was to provide that in the period of the subsidy a substantial portion of their capital should be restored to them, so that at the end of the subsidy period they would be in a position to carry on without the burden of these overhead capital charges. That was the basis on which the scheme was framed, wisely, by the Labour Government in 1924—the final scheme that was adjusted. The factories have done their part well, as the increase in the acreage shows. It has been a very successful scheme and it has helped agriculture. The true credit for the scheme does not belong to the distinguished Gentlemen upon either of the Front Benches. The credit must go to an equally great man of a former generation, the Emperor Napoleon, who first started growing sugar beet when France was shut off from getting cane sugar.

The CHAIRMAN
I sincerely hope that we shall not go into that side of the question in dealing with this Supplementary Estimate. Whether Napoleon or anybody else started the system is not a question which arises here.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
They followed the very good example of a very great man. I will leave it at that. Sugar beet has been grown in France since then mainly for the purpose of developing other sides of agriculture, a point on which the Minister himself touched. Nothing improves the soil more than sugar beet. The roots go deep down into the soil, probably extending 6 or 7 feet, they split up the ground and aerate it and they remain there rotting and increasing the fertility of the soil to an extraordinary extent. That is part of the value which the farmer gets from the crop. In France, the sugar of the sugar beet crop is to some extent a by-product; the crop is grown largely for the purpose of stimulating and recreating the soil. After the revolution the soil of France had been ruined and it was the sugar beet crop that restored its fertility, and I believe that in this country it will do as much as any land drainage scheme to restore the fertility of the land. I wish the scheme could be extended further. I cannot suggest anything in the nature of legislation, because that would be wrong and out of order, but I would like to say this with regard to Scotland. We were the first to grow sugar beet; in Kintyre and Argyll we grew sugar beet with up to 20 per cent. of suprose content, the highest in the country, the reason being that we have more sunshine in Argyll than there is in other parts of the country. We have longer hours of daylight; we are nearer the North Pole; and it is the ultra-violet rays that make the sugar beet grow. But it was found that the cost of the steamer transport from the port of Campbell-town to Greenock was 10s. per ton in the steamer. That came off the price which the farmer got; and after that the sugar beet had to be hauled a considerable distance to the factory. The cost became prohibitive and the farmers were so discouraged that they did not find the crop was economical. Then they grew in its place those very excellent potatoes of which we heard at Question Time and which I hope will find their way into  the House of Commons. I suggest that the sugar beet subsidy might be used in various other ways. I was one of those who tried to get the late Government to extend it to power alcohol distilleries.

The CHAIRMAN
We are discussing here the Vote of a certain amount of money for a particular purpose, and we cannot discuss whether it should be applicable to other things or not.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
With all respect, I am giving the Committee a certain amount of history with regard to the sugar beet industry.

The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that we need all this history on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
I see no sign of impatience on the part of any Member of the Committee. What I was going to say was that if the Government could extend the subsidy to other adaptations it might be possible to have smaller areas. At the present moment a sugar beet factory has to be within reach of 28,000 acres. It takes 4,000 acres at least to supply a sugar beet factory with an adequate supply of beet. [An HON. MEMBER: "More than that."] The result is that we can only put down a sugar beet factory in a very large agricultural area; the more remote parts of the country cannot possibly have factories. But there are other agricultural industries to which the subsidy might be applied, and then there could be smaller areas, and that would be an enormous help. It would mean a stabilising of the farmers' hopes and expectations. That is the value of the sugar beet subsidy. The farmer has got his contract, he has got his price, and knows he can grow his crop with a feeling of certainty. I can recollect the history of another industry.

The CHAIRMAN
I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Estimate. It may be quite easy for him to suggest ever so many more industries to which this might be applicable, but that does not come within the terms of the Estimate.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
With all respect, I have yet to learn that it is out of order in this assembly to use an illustration.

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is using so many illustrations that it might almost be called repetition.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
I think it would be more in order to wait until you have heard the illustration.

HON. MEMBERS
Chair.!

The CHAIRMAN
We are not discussing a new Estimate. We are discussing a certain sum of money which is an addition to the original Estimate. That money is to be voted for a specific purpose, and that is the question which is before us.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
With all respect, I was just following the Minister in what he said as to the effect of the sugar beet subsidy, and I was saying that this subsidy was probably capable of extension. I always understood that one could give an illustration from an analogous industry, and I proposed to give such an illustration, but I bow to your Ruling.

The CHAIRMAN
The extension to which the hon. Member is referring would require more money and may require legislation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
I think it might require more money, but it certainly would not require more legislation, as it could be done as an administrative action; but, if that is your Ruling, I submit to it with all deference, I think there has been no more beneficial Measure for agriculture than this one, and I should be very glad to see an extension of it. If it is administered in the way in which it has been administered in the past and carried on with the skill and diligence with which it has been pursued so far, I feel sure that it is going to do more and more to recreate agriculture. As the Minister pointed out, our farmers have been taught a great lesson. It is a difficult and delicate crop to grow. It has awakened the agricultural industry in many parts of the country; it has brought farmers into contact with business minds; and the result is that we have got an intellectual crop and a business crop in agriculture such as no other agricultural Measure of the past generation has done anything to bring about. I congratulate the Minister on this Estimate and I cordially support it.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS
As the Committee are aware, this Supplementary Estimate provides sums of money for the 19 factories which have been erected in  Great Britain since the passage of the original Act. I understand that some of these factories, which have already been subsidised out of public funds, have in addition been able to get some £2,000,000 advanced to them under the Trade Facilities Act at a very low rate of interest; I believe that they are now buying foreign sugar to be refined in this country, and in this way they are directly competing with the home sugar refining industry. If my information is correct on this question, I think a new situation has arisen. This state of things did not exist when the original Estimate was introduced, and the situation which has now arisen is that these heavily subsidised factories, which have been financed in the past by public money at a low rate of interest, are now directly competing with private individuals who have built up their private concerns at their own expense. In view of these facts, I do not think any hon. Member can justify the proposal which we are now discussing. The late Government said that the original Act caused great injury to the sugar refining industry, and I hope before the Debate closes that we shall have some assurance that the Government do not contemplate public money being given to subsidise factories in a way that is likely to injure the sugar refining industry in Great Britain. The Minister of Agriculture has taken credit this afternoon for proposing this additional subsidy, and he asked: "Who dares to laugh at sugar now?" There is one section which has not benefited in connection with sugar for many years and that is the British public who have suffered to the extent of some £20,000,000 or £15,000,000 as the result of these Supplementary Estimates. All this money has been taken from the pockets of the British taxpayers, and it has been handed over to the favoured few. In addition to this, the State has lost some £4,000,000 through the nonpayment of excise duty on the sugar grown in this country. For these and other reasons I think, when we come to analyse the figures as we are entitled to do, on this final Vote for sugar we have a right to ask if there has been any gain to the nation as a whole as the result of these proposals. We all agree that if £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 of public money is spent for  any purpose it must benefit those who receive the money, but it is open to question whether by that expenditure there has been any economic gain to the nation. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that, instead of taking credit to himself for this Act and for presenting this Supplementary Estimate to the House of Commons, he should answer the simple question: "Has not the result of this policy been to grow vast quantities of sugar at the expense of other crops, and if that be so, do I think it is, then the net gain to the nation is the difference between the economic value of the sugar grown and the value of the other crops. I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I say that, although the policy which has been adopted has been extravagant and has been fortunate for a few people, it has hurt the whole sugar refining industry, and it has been a disastrous experiment to the State as a whole.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR
I am very pleased to notice in this Debate that hon. Members below the Gangway are gradually emerging into the open in regard to the beet sugar subsidy. Fortunately or unfortunately, at the last election I had to face a leaflet which invited everybody to support the abolition of this dole, and that leaflet made a very considerable attack upon the view which has been held so far in the constituency which I represent. Speaking as a grower, and living in the midst of the factories operating in East Anglia, I make bold to say, this new industry has been a veritable Godsend to agriculture, amid much depression. As a new Member, I feel somewhat at a loss to keep within the terms of your rightful ruling, Mr. Young, because looking at the industry as a whole, and having regard to the low grain prices and the difficulties connected with marketing, your ruling does not encourage me to deal with the beet sugar industry from the wider point of view which I had intended. There are two points which I should like to emphasize in regard to the purposes to which this subsidy will be put. We have heard a very considerable reiteration of the big profits which the factories have secured. It is not my intention to criticise the action and the business acumen which have enabled the factories to make such a good  bargain with the Farmers' Union, but after looking at the extent of the subsidies, which have been granted for the purpose of developing agriculture, I am bound to say that the factories have drawn three-fourths of the subsidies and the other sections of the industry have not had a fair share of: the subsidies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may cheer that statement, but I think it is desirable that some method should be adopted by which we can persuade the factories under Government influence to adopt at least a 50–50 basis with the whole industry when they are dealing with these subsidies. I am strengthened in this point when I emphasize the contrast between the condition of the workers in the factories and the workers on the land. I congratulate those men who have been able to secure between £3 and £6 a week in the factories, and I have no hesitation in saying that they have earned every penny they have got by hard and strenuous labour, but, owing to the economic conditions under which most of the profit goes to the factory, we are not in a position to give to the junior partner in agriculture what he ought to receive in regard to the development of the industry which, I understood was the purpose for which the subsidy was intended. On this point I associate myself with the view expressed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) to the effect that a little inquiry would do no harm, and it might bring some moral suasion to bear on the proprietors of the factories to be more easy in making their bargains, having regard to the fortunate position in which they are now placed. May I remind hon. Members that this beet sugar industry provides only a seasonal occupation, and the 19 factories throw out of employment at this season of the year several thousand men, and there is no unemployment pay for them. More unfortunate still, in the localities where these factories are placed unemployment is already rife and work is difficult to secure. I submit that this House cannot always forget this further corollary to the development of the sugar beet industry. I very much appreciate the new spirit which has been displayed in this House in regard to the mutual desire to build up this industry on sound  economic lines, although I deprecate the action of certain hon. Members who are trying to create the idea that hon. Members sitting on the Government benches are antagonistic to the development and the improvement of agriculture. Some of us are very much wrapped up in the agricultural industry, and our lives from the cradle to the present moment have been concentrated on an honest desire to make that great industry what it ought to be, namely, one of the greatest industries of this country. In the carrying out of this task, whether we are dealing with the development of the sugar beet industry or trying to stabilise prices, at least we should be given credit for having good intentions, and we shall be showing that we are friends of the agricultural industry if we do our best to make this proposal a nucleus for a new start to achieve better things on wider lines.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN
I think the Minister of Agriculture is very lucky to have received so much approbation in regard to the success of his proposals. It has been pointed out that the success of the sugar beet industry is largely due to the subsidies, one of which we are now discussing. I know that a good many doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of subsidising these beet sugar factories. May I point out in regard to this subsidy that there are other processes developing like the system which is being developed by the Oxford Research School on the farm at Eynsham. The Minister of Agriculture has taken credit for being the parent of part of this policy because he appointed a Committee to look into this question. That has developed. The late Minister of Agriculture gave a grant for a research fund at Oxford, and that has developed into this process, which I believe will do more to save the taxpayer from further big subsidies, and to put the sugar beet industry on a self-supporting basis, than any other process at present known. I do not want to go into details, but this is a matter of substance. The investigation has been going on for three years, and, at the present price of 46s. per ton to the grower, the net cost per ton worked out, during the three years 1998–31, with the subsidy at £8 8s. 10d. as it is now, at £14 5s. 1d. In 1931–34, when the subsidy will be reduced, there will still be a profit. When  the subsidy has been reduced to £1 6s. 1d., the cost per ton will work out at £21 7s. 10d., and, in view of the fact that the average price of sugar over the last five years has been £27, the process at all events will be able to pay its way, whatever other sugar beet factories may do. These costs are calculated on the basis of the present price to the farmer, namely, 46s. per ton. Of course, new experiments always require a lot of money and time, but this factory at Eynsham is now working—

Mr. HURD
Are those figures obtained on a commercial scale, or on an experimental scale?

Brigadier-General BROWN
On a commercial scale. The reason why they are able to work more cheaply than the other factories is because they work all the year round. The factory itself works for 10 months of the year instead of for only three months, and, therefore, it can deal with 100,000 tons of beet, working every month in the year, with a much smaller plant than is required to deal with 100,000 tons when working for only three months. There are also great economies in transport and freightage. Reference has been made to the great cost of sending the beets to the factory, but in the case of the Oxford process they have two drying stations, which cost very much less than the other 19 factories. These drying stations are within carting distance of the factory, and can take roots from a radius of 18 miles. It has been calculated that about 25 square miles are required to produce 100,000 tons of beet, and under this system the whole of that beet is carted, and does not have to be carried by rail at all. It is dried and kept until it is wanted, and then it is sent to the factory itself. The great economies effected by this process are well worth the study of the Minister. It is no longer in the experimental stage, as some of us saw it two years ago. This year they have sold 1,000 tons of their cossettes, such as we saw at one of these drying stations, to the Colwick factory, where the sugar has been extracted. Whether the claims made for this process are right or not, it seem" to me that the matter ought to be looked into, with a view to enabling the subsidy to be reduced in the future, and more equal payments made to the farmers. One great advantage is that about two-thirds of the labour employed  is permanent skilled labour employed for the whole year. It is true that for three months of the year, when all the beets are coming in, extra labour has to be hired, to the extent of perhaps 100 men at each factory, for three months, as casual labour, but the work is far more permanent than under the present system. I hope that this process will be looked into, because I think that if the claims are made good, it will do more to help the future of the sugar beet industry than any other process can.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM
This Debate is far more opportune than some which have taken place during the present week, especially as the object is to do something in the better interests of the cultivation of the soil and of the agricultural industry. I support the Estimate because sugar beet affords an additional rotation, and that, at the present time, is very important in connection with agriculture. Sugar beet growing not only helps to clean the land, but also helps to fertilise it. Sugar beet has the property of absorbing nitrogen from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil. It therefore helps to increase the fertility of the soil, and it also makes a fine seed bed in preparation for a good crop of wheat. It also affords another source of food supply, and helps to make us more independent of foreign supplies. I do not agree that all the money is taken from the National Exchequer. I maintain that the Sugar Beet Subsidy helps to provide sugar at a lower price for the working classes of this country. It finds employment, too, at a time when labour is taken away from the land, when the weather is not fit for outdoor work, such as ploughing and so forth, and that, also, is a national benefit. Then there is the advantage that it-relieves the area which has been under potatoes. At the present time we are in a difficulty with our potatoes. We cannot sell them, and, if we grew more sugar beet, and so relieved the acreage for potatoes, it would help that industry as well, while we should have plenty of potatoes left for our own food supplies. For these reasons I vote for this Supplementary Estimate with much pleasure, and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to advise the Government to continue the subsidy in future  years. I think it will be a calamity for the cultivation of the soil and for the agricultural industry if this subsidy is not continued. A further advantage of this crop is that it affords increased supplies of food for cattle, in the form of the dried pulp, and that also is worthy of consideration. As a cultivator of the soil and one who is deeply interested in farming, I support the Supplementary Estimate and hope it will pass.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH
I am pleased to have an opportunity of saying how delighted I am to hear the expressions of satisfaction from the other side of the Committee at the success of the sugar beet industry. It is not often that some of us who are of an economical turn of mind are able so gladly and willingly to support one of these Votes, but in this case, bearing in mind the distressed condition of agriculture at the moment, it is good to know that an increase is necessary. The only word of criticism that we have heard has come from the benches below the Gangway, and I am really surprised to hear some of that criticism. I feel that, so far as this industry is concerned, we are greatly indebted to the vigorous organisation which has been brought into being by the beet sugar factories in this country from the very start, and I am not at all sure that, had it not been for the keen business ability behind those factories, any money would have been made out of the industry up to the present. It is all very well to talk about a certain beet sugar factory making a big dividend, but there are other factories that have not done so well, and when one realises how much energy and really good business ability is behind these factories, it is not a matter for surprise that they have on the whole done reasonably well. It must be remembered that these factories are doing a great deal for the farmer. They supply him with seed, they find his labour for him, and pay for it long before they get their money. They also furnish him with manures on long credit terms, they send him the labour for getting in his crop, and they not only find the money for the labour but take a great deal of trouble in providing it in outlying parts where the farmer himself has difficulty in obtaining it. Then they organise the transport of the beet from the farm to the factory, and in  many ways they have reduced the cost of handling the crop, and so have made it possible for the farmer to get his return, which is always certain. In my opinion, even if the return to the factories is, perhaps, more than the average bank interest return, they have certainly earned it. I do not know whether it is quite realised how much the factories are responsible for the big increase in the acreage. The farmer is naturally a conservative person and does not readily change his crops. When we see that at least 300,000 acres will be grown this year, we can realise that a tremendous advance has taken place. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not only give us the sympathy which he has so well expressed to-night, but that he will go further, and see whether it is not possible to continue the subsidy after 1934. The sugar beet industry has also brought advantages to other industries. Large sums are spent for bags and for manures, as well as for all the other supplies required by the factories and farmers, so that it has a far-reaching effect, not only on agriculture generally, but on the industrial populations of our towns. I understand that the factories to-day are employing over 8,000 men, and (hat, since the subsidy has been in existence, £2,250,000 has been paid in wages. I cannot think of any reason why this subsidy should not be supported by the whole country. It is indeed pleasing to know that from the other side of the House the subsidy is having increasing support. It is not as if the price of sugar had advanced. With sugar cheaper in this country than in any other part of the world there is no reason at all to criticise the industry on that account. I am very pleased to have an opportunity of saying a word in defence of the factory organisation, though I hold no brief for them, because I feel that they have helped the farmer to develop the sugar beet business and, as this has been such a Godsend to agriculture this year, I hope we shall see very many years of further prosperity for the industry.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
I will not trouble the Committee with any observations upon the general principles of the Supplementary Estimate as it has been ably analysed and supported by my hon. Friends on these benches. But I wish to  draw attention to a Paper the right hon. Gentleman has issued, No. 43, published on 24th December, 1929, dealing with a statement in the form of balance sheets transmitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I feel some hesitation in drawing attention to a matter of accounts, because the right hon. Gentleman is really not personally responsible for the form of accounts, but officially, pf course, he is responsible for them. I hope he will not take offence and call me insolent, because I say that he is not responsible for the accounts, as his colleague did the other day when I said very courteously that I did not hold him responsible. I think he is not likely to fall foul of me. There was a large amount of discussion in the Standing Committee on the Companies Bill on auditors' certificates before the new Companies Act came into law. Two of the greatest supporters of the view that there should be more responsibility on auditors in auditors' certificates were the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Lady the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who both made some very strong and, I think, on the whole, justifiable observations about auditors' certificates. Now, notwithstanding the views there expressed, though they did not become law, we have these two recent balance sheets sent to us in a form with which I must say I am not in full accord. Although I criticise the form I am quite satisfied that they are completely honest and honourable balance sheets. This Paper deals with the public money and the refineries, otherwise I do not know why it is laid as a Parliamentary Paper under the Subsidy Act of 1925.

The CHAIRMAN
Has this anything to do with the Estimate that is before us?

Mr. SAMUEL
I will read the title: "British Sugar Subsidy Act, 1925, Ministry of Agriculture. Statement in the form of Balance Sheet submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Section 2, Refineries Ordered to be printed 24th December, 1929, No. 43."

The CHAIRMAN
I am anxious to know whether it has anything to do with the Estimate that is before us now.

Mr. SAMUEL
Yes. It is presumably on those figures that the subsidy is paid. I am drawing attention to the form in  which the figures are shown, because public money is involved in this Supplementary Estimate and we have to deal with the White Paper on these lines. I know very well that no chartered accountant, in giving an auditor's certificate of this kind, can make chattel valuations or put a value on so many tons of sugar or syrup, or on materials as described in the balance sheets in my hands, but there appears here an item of £2,619,000 as the valuation of stocks of sugar. Does the right hon. Gentleman in accepting this balance sheet accept responsibility for the statement in the auditor's certificate that "we have accepted the valuation of the stock on hand certified by the directors"? Because upon that valuation in some degree depends the validity of the profit and loss balance. I have no doubt the figures are perfectly correct, and the mere fact that I believe them to be correct gives me further licence in criticising this first balance sheet. But the form in which it is presented after what was said upstairs in the discussion of the Companies Bill does not satisfy us. It may satisfy people outside. Private shareholders may accept the old forms of auditors' certificates, but this form in a balance sheet is not in future going to satisfy the House of Commons, and when the time comes I shall, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, put in a protest against the form these two certificates take. It says on page 3, on the left-hand side, "Profit and Loss Account as above, £627,717." There is no other reference to that amount anywhere in this balance sheet. Where is it? There is no profit and loss account before us; it is omitted but referred to. That shows the sloppy way in which these accounts are produced. Again, I find this: "We have obtained all the information and explanation we have required which have been promptly and satisfactorily given." That is mere wind and useless verbiage. Does it mean that information has sometimes not been promptly and satisfactorily given? If not, why is it now stated that the information has been given promptly? The next thing we shall have in these accounts is a statement that the office boy's tie is of the right colour to  satisfy the auditors. It has nothing to do with the accounts. It is felt that in honest concerns auditors' certificates add nothing to the value of a director's signature. That is the case here. This is not a case of the safety of shareholders' property. It is public-money at stake and the accounts are submitted to the House of Commons. In the case of a badly managed concern an auditor's certificate might possibly be not only useless as a protection, but might give a false sense of security. On the next occasion, unless the Minister can arrange for a much more searching type of certificate, with the responsibility of the auditors for what they are saying, and with the omission of things that mean nothing, we shall move a reduction of the Vote. The balance sheet on the other side of the White Paper is laughable. It says, without any approval or disapproval: "No provision has been made for depreciation of refinery, plant and machinery. Subject to this, we are of opinion that such balance sheet is properly drawn up." In other words, subject to that item, which is the pivot of the whole value of the certificate as showing whether a loss or profit has been made the balance sheet has been properly drawn up. In other words, in pompous verbiage, the auditors state that their work is nothing but a vehicle for obtaining information from the directors for which they do not vouch, for dealing with stocks and stores for the valuation of which they are not responsible, and for obtaining book-keepers' figures of which they are only adders-up. This auditor's certificate is not worth the paper it is written on as a protection. The auditors do not even say whether the fact that provision has net been made for depreciation of refinery, plant and machinery is in their opinion a legitimate and prudent omission or whether the omission vitiates or affects adversely the value of the figures given in the profit and loss account. I ask the Minister whether be will take steps to make a protest to auditors who draw up our sugar balance sheets, and notify them that in future we will not accept certificates in which the auditors shirk all responsibility for the material they use and quote. Auditors should not give us certificates based on figures of which they  have only second-hand cognizance. We do not ask auditors to value so many hundredweights of molasses or sugar or so many dozen boxes. But if they cannot value them they should state definitely that they have merely taken figures given them by the bookkeepers and managers, and add that they have no means of knowing whether they are correct or not, and that the Government themselves must satisfy themselves that the value of the stocks is as shown in the balance-sheet. I have made my protest. I shall not oppose the Vote, but in the interest of candid accounting I think the House should put its foot down and insist upon auditors taking proper responsibility for what is certified by them. Second-hand knowledge unvouched for by auditors is no protection and is not acceptable as evidence in balance-sheets laid before the House of Commons, and should not be used as material for an auditor's certificate.

6.0 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison)
I think we can congratulate ourselves upon particular unanimity in this Debate, for, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), there appears to have been no hostile criticism. Apparently the scheme, so we are told, dates from the advent of Napoleon. I was not in this House at the time the present scheme was started—I was compulsorily away—so that I was an interested listener of the animadversions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend here as to who was precisely the parent of this scheme. At all events, there is a singular consensus of opinion that the results of its operations are very beneficial. Therefore, there is nothing, as far as I am concerned, in the Vote to defend, but there are a few points, more or less of inquiry, to which I shall reply. A request was made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) with respect to the reports as to the factory profits and the general conditions of the beet-sugar industry, to show, as far as we can, how much the farmer receives and how much of the benefit goes down to the worker, and so on. The inquiry which was promised by my right hon. Friend was instituted some time ago. It  is now being carried on, and we hope to be able to publish a good and complete result of that inquiry in the form of one of our orange books in the economic series of publications of the Ministry. I am sure it will be a very valuable Report, and I hope, although I cannot name a date, that it will be ready for publication by about June. The inquiry, I am glad to say, is already well advanced.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in June a conference will take place between the growers and the beet factors, and that it is most essential that this Report should be published before that date.

Dr. ADDISON
The hon. Member is no doubt fully aware that an inquiry of this kind, which was instituted only a short time ago, requires a lot of actuarial work and necessitates a great many journeys. Inquiries are not limited to this country. We have to get Continental experience as well. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall get on with it as quickly as possible but I should not like to say that it will be published before June. I can say that in the very short time we have had in which to deal with the matter we have got on as quickly as possible.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD
Is it not possible to publish this Report before June, and will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that an official from his office is present at the negotiations between the growers and the factors in order to ensure that the growers have a fair deal?

Dr. ADDISON
We are always in very close contact with the growers not only during the conduct of negotiations, but before that time. I can assure the hon. Member that his misgivings are not altogether well-founded. We find, almost without exception, that while the farmers are always glad to have a little more, on the whole, I think it is fair to say that they are not dissatisfied. There is a good deal to be paid for the farmers. They are not dissatisfied with the result of their bargain with the factories. I may say that the bargain this year is 46s. as the basic price, but I believe that, owing to the good weather and the good yield and  the sugar content, the average price is working out at about 52s.—very many shillings more than the basic price. The mere fact that the acreage has extended so unexpectedly in the country is the best and most practical proof that the farmers as a whole find this as remunerative a part of their work as any. I think it is fair to say that in some parts of the country it has been almost the salvation of agriculture this year, and that it has been the one crop, practically, in regard to which they could say that they had done good. With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) concerning the balance sheet—and I confess I share his view in some respects—I will see that the criticisms which he has made are considered. We will certainly do our best to deal with any faults which may be found in the form of the accounts. Under the Subsidy Act we are entitled to receive accounts from the companies and factories every year, but in this particular case the company concerned renders an account which deals with vastly more than that which is concerned with beet sugar. This is a very large firm of refiners as the hon. Member is aware, and these details relate apparently to their business as a whole.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the back of the White Paper No. 43 he will find a very much smaller account—that of the Sankey Sugar Company. The total is £734,000, as against £11,300,000 of the Tate and Lyle Company. I refer to the Sankey Sugar Company's balance sheet on the back of White Paper No. 43. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that when you look at the words "no provision," etc., and then apply them to this company's position the balance sheet becomes a farce. Seeing that this "no provision" may vitiate the whole result and may alter the stated net profit or loss he cannot expect the House of Commons to accept such a balance sheet as a serious document showing a true test of the company's affairs.

Dr. ADDISON
I can promise the hon. Member that we will look into the matter in the light of his criticism, but I would point out that these companies do not  get any of the subsidy which is under discussion at the moment. However, I will do my best to give effect to the hon. Member's criticism. There are, as far as I can see, no other points on which I was asked to make any reply, and I think there is a unanimous disposition to grant us this Supplementary Estimate. I think we can say that the mere size of it shows that there is a growing appreciation in the industry of agriculture of all that is implied in this kind of thing. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) dealt with one of the most significant features of this matter. It is introducing into agriculture a new conception of method and a new and wider co-relation between the different parties who take part in the processes of the industry. It is bringing the factory and the producer nearer together; it is getting them familiar through working together. It is bringing improved methods to the notice of the producer and he is obtaining direct benefit, and in many ways, I think, it is assisting agriculture and in an indirect way will be of permanent value. I think that the lessons which we are gradually learning from the improved operations of this process will be applicable in various ways to the marketing of other agricultural commodities. Finally, in respect of the illustration mentioned by an hon. Member on the back benches, I can say that we are fully in touch with the improved methods in the factories to which he refers. We are fully alive to the significance of the improved methods which may be introduced, because the weak point in this factory system, and the one we should do all we can to try to remedy, is that it is so essentially a seasonal work. It means that for so many weeks there is unemployment. Any alteration in method which can secure to these factories a longer working period will be an advantage.

Mr. HURD
Can the right hon. Gentleman give a report of the present condition of the Eynsham experiment as to how far it has gone and as to how far it has proved a commercial scheme?

Dr. ADDISON
As a matter of fact, I cannot. I have spent a great deal of time in investigating this particular case, and if I were quite certain in my own mind I should be clad to say so. I can  only say that the results commercially and otherwise of this particular experiment are now under careful examination and we shall be delighted if the experiment proves to be commercially sound. I would not like to say any more except that we wish it well; it is a very important experiment. I think I have dealt with all the various points, which were quite minor ones, and in view of the entirely friendly attitude shown in this Debate, I hope that we shall now be given this Supplementary Estimate.

Sir G. COLLINS
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman by administration do something to stop subsidised factories from buying foreign sugar, and melting is in these factories at the expense of the national industry of sugar refining?

Dr. ADDISON
I find that we have no power to do that. The factories, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, do refine raw sugar which is imported and, therefore, provide work in the slack period. I am fully alive to the importance of the point which the hon. Member has brought to my attention. We have not, under the Act, any power to deal with the matter, but I will look into it, and perhaps later on he will communicate with the Department.

Major GEORGE DAVIES
I make no apology for taking part in this Debate, owing to the fact that I have been connected with the sugar industry in various aspects for over 40 years. I was surprised that an hon. Friend of mine expressed surprise that Members of the party below the Gangway had objected to this subsidy in detail and in general. Surely that affords us no surprise. It must, indeed, be a day of lamentations of Members below the Gangway. We can see them seeking the nearest wailing wall, and laying their heads against it. This is a most extraordinary Debate to those of us who, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister reminded us, have sat in times past and heard my right hon. Friend sitting in front of me bring forward these Estimates on three occasions when the party opposite were on this side of the House. We know full well the attitude of hon. Members opposite on those occasions. How different is the Debate to-day when one hon. Member after another, admittedly new to the House, has taken part in this Debate and has spoken sympathetically, not only towards  this particular Supplementary Estimate, but towards the whole industry of agriculture. We remember very well the part that was played by one whose absence we regret at this moment. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. He never lost an opportunity of standing at that Box whenever the question came up and denouncing it with a Parliamentary vocabulary of polished phrases of which I envy him. We know that: "He polished his phrases so admirablyThat now he is ruler of the King's Navee." That may possibly point to a moral and adorn a tale for hon. Members opposite who have not been in the House long. If, for example, some of the younger occupants of the benches opposite, say the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), had, in the past, when he was in Opposition, polished his phrases a little more carefully, in those oratorical treats to which he allowed us to listen, he might to-day, instead of tagging behind in the wake of the Lord Privy Seal, like the exhaust from a large Rolls-Royce, have been occupying one of the seats of the mighty. That, I suggest, is the possible result of phrase polishing. The First Lord of the Admiralty was not the only one who ventured to pour the vials of criticism on the Estimates that we brought forward with respect to sugar beet. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) seldom lost an opportunity of taking part in those Debates, and when he found that Homer was nodding—that is, I hope, a graceful and, I hope, a Parliamentary allusion to yourself, Mr. Speaker—he was bold enough to try to drag in reference to his favourite hobby, not unconnected with the taxation of land values. It is indeed a refreshing thing that there has been such a change and that so much sweet reasonableness has been shown by hon. Members opposite, from the Minister downwards. It shows not only that there is a great change of attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite, as well as a change of side in the House, but we are finding on the benches opposite a desire to understand the agricultural problem which is to-day occupying the minds of so many people, and a realisation on their part that it is a problem that needs solution. The hon. Member for The Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) in her interesting speech, all too short, said that a veritable miracle had been wrought in the country by this piece of legislation with respect to the sugar beet industry. That is true. I have been closely connected with the sugar industry in the growing of the sugar cane, the manufacture of cane sugar, the manufacture of beet sugar, the designing and erection of sugar factories and refineries. Therefore, I know the difficulties of starting a new enterprise in a country which is already old in its experience of cane sugar manufacture. I have taken part in the sugar industry in Formosa, in the Philippines, in Cuba, in Porta Rica, in Mexico and in this country—all countries which have been manufacturing cane sugar for a longer or shorter period of time. When you start a new sugar undertaking in such countries, with all the various points of view that have to be taken into consideration—the water supply, the general lay-out, the fibre content, the sucrose content, the water content of the raw material, the opportunities for marketing, etc., even vast as your experience may have been, you find that when you have established your factory you have made miscalculations, and the first year or two is a time of difficulty and unfulfilled expectation. Nevertheless, we see before our eyes in this country, in a few years, a great industry such as the sugar beet industry set up; an industry which has feeding it an acreage of 300,000 this year, 33½ per cent. more than last year, and with prospects next year of an additional 33⅓ per cent. of acreage. Yet hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, because they find this policy has been a success, despite their prognostications to the contrary—according to their theories it never should have been a success—tell us that it is not a success because, they say, the factory is getting more than its fair share of the profit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are not they"?] When we look at the increasing acreage, we can confidently leave that matter to those concerned. One hon. Member says, "Are not they?" I say that they are not, because the law of supply and demand takes place, and if the factory cannot get the crop coming to it, then that  factory is so much steel, iron and comcrete. Therefore the farmer can bargain for a fair price. The factories were compelled to offer sufficient inducements for the farmers to grow the crop. Is it not evidence that that inducement has been sufficient, when we note the increase of acreage? The criticism is that with the number of factories that are growing up in the country it will be a question of them being able to pick and choose. A bigger acreage is being offered to them than they can cope with, unless we can get an extensive development of the Oxford Eynsham system, which will enable the factory to run for a 10 months' period instead of a three months period. I regret that the figures are not greater. The figures would have been greater if we had had a sugar factory erected and in operation in the South of England. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep that matter in the forefront of his attention during the next few weeks, if he is going to be in office, and see if he cat not encourage development down there. The acreage is waiting, but for reasons which it is not proper or material to enter into now, the factory is not there. The transportation to Ipswich is becoming prohibitive, and this will be accentuated when the next crop is ready. This industry differs from most agricultural industries. It is not merely the growing of agriculture, but it represents also manufacturing processes. The sugar beet is useless unless it is made into the manufactured article. In regard to sugar beet the raw material deteriorates between the time of harvesting and manufacture, there is a loss of sucrose content and complaint on the part of the grower. That is why it is desirable that by some system of crop drying you can deal with your agricultural product and store it without depreciation. That is the real objective of the Oxford Eynsham process, and I wish it every success. I was not surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary said that he wished it well, but he was not able to commit himself with regard to it. It is a process which has been agitating the minds of those connected with the industry for 25 years, and they have not yet solved it. It is to be hoped that we are on the track of solving it, because its solution will mean a revolution in the  sugar industry of this country and the world in general. There are many subsidiary advantages from this industry. There is the advantage to the factory, to the grower, to the employé in the factory and in the field. These advantages do not always receive due consideration. There was a time in the conduct of the sugar industry when the most important person was the agriculturist who grew the crop. Then the engineer-minded man who looked after the machine became the most important person. Next, the business man who ran the concern was regarded as the most important person. But Java, one of the foremost sugar countries of the world, has led the world in saying that it is the chemist who is the really important person in the industry, from production in the field to the production of the finished article. One after another the other countries are finding out that, probably, the most important person in the industry is the chemical director. The sugar industry is a highly chemical industry, and there is a great opportunity for the products of our universities—the young men who want to go into scientific courses which they can turn to practical results, and not merely spend their lives peering through the microscope—to take their university degree in science and turn their acquired knowledge into commercial channels, as many of them must do. This new sugar industry offers them a great field. We have set up a new industry and there are 19 factories to-day which require on their staffs highly expert chemists. That is one of the important features in the development of this brand new British industry. What is going to happen a short time hence, I do not know. I do not know whether we shall have to face the absolute disappearance of the subsidy, for which the hon. Member for Burslem has been looking for years. Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, and one can almost note from here the sickness of the hon. Member's heart. No doubt he looks forward to the time when he will be able, with his facile pencil, to draw a caricature of the burial of the once flourishing sugar beet industry. We can only hope that his expectations will not be fulfilled. After the testimony that has been brought forward from two-thirds of the House in  favour of this industry, and the experience of those of us who know something at first hand about this matter, is the country to be faced with a continuance of the period when these Estimates will come forward annually with respect to this industry, or is the House to be faced with the complete elimination of the sugar beet industry, and all that its development stands for in our agricultural and industrial life? Whatever the wails from the walls below the Gangway may be, those of us who claim common sense in regard to this matter will see to it that we are not so short-sighted as to allow that industry to disappear and to leave only the scars of it on the countryside.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE
One or two points have been raised with regard to the cultivation contract in force which have not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman who responded to the Debate, and I should like to say a few words on the subject. Suggestions have been made by hon. Members who could not have had any close personal acquaintance with the contracts or the way in which they were prepared. I am in the fortunate position of being on both sides of the negotiations, because I am a factory director and also a contract grower. It may interest the Committee and those who imagine that there is any possibility of one side or the other not getting a fair deal, to know that when the last national contract was prepared, the factory books were placed, without reserve, before the accountants of the National Farmers' Union, and every effort was made by both sides to arrive at a fair deal, on the fullest examination of the facts. I have not the slightest doubt that the same thing will happen again on the next occasion when the contracts are revised. I would remind the hon. Member who said that two-thirds of the subsidy went to the factories and one-third only to the farmers, that that statement is very far from being the case. To prove my statement I would mention what happened when the subsidy fell from 19s. 6d. to 13s. That fall of 6s. 6d. per cwt. is the precise equivalent of a drop of £1 per ton of cleaned beet of 15 per cent. sugar content delivered at the factory. The intention was that that drop of £1 per ton should be shared  equally by each side to the bargain, that the farmer should get 10s. per ton less for his beet and the factories should pay 10s. more than they did before. After an examination of the accounts the factories expressed their willingness to bear 12s. of the crop, and 12s. was and is being borne by the factories and 8s. by the farmers. Those are the bald facts. The strongest evidence that farmers generally are not dissatisfied with their treatment is shown by the very large increase in the area under cultivation. It rose to 230,000 acres in the year which is just over, and has jumped to well over 300,000 acres for the season which is in front of us. With regard to the amazingly inaccurate figures given by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) as to the cost of cultivation and the receipts, I can only give my own experience on this matter. If I had known the question was coming up I could have brought further figures. I have to send my beet to Ipswich, a long distance away and fairly costly, but in spite of that my receipts this season for sugar beet were more than double the cultivation costs, even when I have made full allowance for rent, which I do not have to pay because the land is my own. My early deliveries brought me in £45 an acre in cash under the national contract. The cost of cultivation was £19 per acre, and I added to that 25s. per acre for rent. As the weather deteriorated later and heavy rains came on I did not get the same receipts, but my total receipts for the season are more than double the total costs, and that has been the experience of many other growers during the past year. I admit that it has been an exceptionally favourable year.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR
Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that second class land yields anything like the return that he has mentioned?

Sir G. COURTHOPE
The land I am speaking of would be considered, not second class, but third class land by most beet growers. It is a heavy clay soil. I admit that in 1928 I made a loss, but in 1929 I made a satisfactory profit, and I do not think there is any reason for a farmer to quarrel with the results of his returns in sugar beet. In fact, many of us have found that it is the only satis  factory item in our farming profit and loss account. I only wish there were more factories so that we could grow more. From the farmers' point of view the special value of this crop is not alone that we get a profit upon it but that it is a first class cleaning crop, which improves the land, and it is the only first class cleaning crop which can be sold for cash immediately after harvest. All other crops, mangolds, swedes, mean that we have to wait for a hypothetical profit; until you have put them into animals and then wait for an uncertain market for beef and mutton. Sugar beet you sell for cash directly after harvest, and you clean your land in the process of cultivation. It is of the greatest value to agriculture. May I remind the Committee, in conclusion, of this remarkable fact, that the whole scheme of the subsidy was based on the asumption that the world price of granulated sugar would not fall below 45s. per cwt. It has fallen to about half that amount and after overcoming many difficulties by good management the industry has been established, I do not say on a satisfactory basis but at least on a substantial basis which I hope will be extended rather than diminished in the future.

Mr. BUTLER
I desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments. Since I have been in the House I have been impressed by the very few opportunities we have for discussing any problems connected with agriculture, and I regard it as a matter of principle that when the subject of agriculture is discussed it should be gone into as closely and as effectively as possible. This is a subject on which I should like to dwell because more than one question has been raised of interest to my constituents, such as the merits of the subsidy and other analogous matters, but I realise that we are considering a Supplementary Estimate and my business is to stick solely to that point. I could go on for a long time pointing out various other matter connected with the growing of sugar beet. In the area I represent there is a factory, and it has been the absolute saving of the district. We have more unemployed than any other rural area, and but for the sugar beet industry we should have been absolutely in the depths of unemployment, because many more families would have been unemployed but for the  opportunity they have had of going into the sugar beet factory. Some hon. Members will perhaps remember the saying of Disraeli in one of his books: "Strange that a manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age should so frequently occasion political disaster." He was referring to sugar. There has been a remarkable unanimity on both sides of the Committee this evening, and it seems that the "manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age," has, in fact, charmed both sides of the Committee this afternoon. In considering this Supplementary Vote this evening we have to decide whether there is any reason for uncertainty in estimating. If we look at the historical growth of the industry, both in this country and in Europe, we shall find that there is a great risk for uncertainty in estimating the probable amount of money necessary. The Minister of Agriculture referred to a character in history—Mr. Pitt. Let me refer to another character who was a descendant of Pitt's great antagonist—Napoleon III. Any hon. Member who has read the rather voluminous documents which were written by that gentleman in his retirement in the fortress of Ham, will remember that he agrees that there is always bound to be uncertainty in this problem; and as it was in his day, so it is now. There is bound to be uncertainty in estimating, and I agree with the Minister that the uncertainty is not remarkable. Nor is it remarkable when you consider questions of soil and climate, and many other matters which have to be considered before you can bring the crop to fruition. I should like to mention the question of the problem of soils. There is a great difference between different types of soil. The hon. and gallant Member for the Rye Division (Sir G. Courthope) has told us that his area is clay soil. My area is also clay soil, and there are, of course, difficulties in the cultivation of this crop. Is it necessary there should be such great uncertainty, if in the future the question of soils could be taken into account in considering any question of subvention? I admit that subvention on a soil basis has been put forward by Mr. Venn, of the Agricultural Research Department at Cambridge, and I think it is worthy of consideration for the future. The hon. Member for The Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) has said that the  sugar beet subsidy is often taken as an example of what might happen in the future as regards a subvention to agriculture; and if that is the case surely it is worth while going scientifically into the question of estimating the amount of crop. If we go into the matter in a scientific way we shall be able to learn important facts which will assist us in our future policy in relation to price and in regard to framing our programme for the future. Uncertainty is natural in sugar beet. I should like, however, to have heard from the Minister more explanation on the question of different soils in different parts of the country, and if this could be gone into by experts it would have a bearing on the future agricultural policy of this country. I hope this point will receive consideration.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND
I should like to say a few words from the farmers' point of view. I have grown sugar beet myself, but on very poor soil; chalky soil. But the growing of this crop has paid me better than growing wheat on the same land. We have no sugar factory in my constituency. We have been trying to get one, and the farmers are agreed that if they could only get a factory erected in a convenient spot to which they could carry their roots easily, so that the cost of the carriage would not be too great, they are confident that they would be able to make a profit on the crop, whereas up to the present there has been nothing but a loss. I do not think the question of soil comes in so much. It is uncertain; but you can grow more wheat to the acre on a rich soil than on a stiff clay soil. I was getting 12 tons of sugar beet to the acre; but if we could average throughout the country between eight tons and 10 tons, then the crop would be a paying one. We have to look at it not only from the actual price we obtain for the roots but from the point of view that we are able to get food afterwards for our dairy cattle and that we are also cleaning the land in cultivating the crop. At the same time, we are getting a better price than we should get for any other root crop. If this industry comes to an end it will not only be a great blow to farmers who are growing roots and sugar beet, but to the country as a whole, because we have developed an industry in an article which we now recognise as  being a necessity—sugar. We are employing many thousands of people, and although it may be only seasonal employment it is filling a gap in the unemployment ranks which otherwise would be further extended if the industry is not kept alive. Therefore, considering the amount of good which has already been done by the subsidy I hope that all parties, putting aside their political prejudices in connection with Free Trade, Protection or bounties, will look at it only from the point of view of the practical good which is being done to two sections of the community and as a help towards the problem of unemployment. I hope the House will hesitate a long time before it abolished what it has given so freely during the past years. I am confident that the growing of sugar beet will increase largely as long as the bounty is continued, but if we cease giving the bounty naturally the growing of beet for making into sugar will cease absolutely. There is no reason why we should not treble or quadruple the acreage under cultivation. By cultivating sugar beet we not only increase the amount of labour employed on the land—even those not engaged in farming know that the cultivation of an acre of beetroot will employ 10 times, in fact 20 times the amount of labour that an acre of grass would employ—but the land requires a considerable amount of artificials, and that means employment in other trades. Let us assume that we could quadruple the acreage at present under cultivation. We should then quadruple the number of people employed, not only in the farming industry directly concerned, but also in the factories. One can therefore see that thousands more would be employed directly and indirectly. We should look at the question entirely from the business, practical, farming and national point of view, and if we do that we shall all agree on the wisdom of continuing the subsidy.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I do not think anyone will accuse me of anything but the deepest interest in this subject, particularly as I have had some small interest in the growing of all kinds of things for many years. I am interested in the subject also from other points of view. There are a few questions which I  would like to have answered, some by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, some by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and others by the Minister of Agriculture. We have had a most interesting speech from one hon. Member on the subject of soils. There is a line of research upon which the Minister might give us a little more information. As the growing of sugar beet is dependant on several factors, such as sun and the percentage of various chemical foods in the soil, the Minister ought to be able to tell us what soils are most suitable for the crop. It is conceivable that after a number of years the subsidy may run out. On the other hand it may be considered necessary, in the interests of the State, to extend the subsidy. It is equally conceivable that there may be an actual waste of money in the growing of sugar beet on certain soils, while on other soils the crop might be highly profitable. Can the Minister give us some information as to the researches of his Department? Will he tell us frankly what are the most suitable soils? One hon. Member said that he has poor soil but gets very good results. Another hon. Gentleman has said that he has clay soil and that that is the worst of all. There is a very large amount of information which the House ought to be given. The Minister made a most interesting statement as to the effect of last summer and the exceptionally dry September in producing a high percentage of sugar in the crop. The autumn rains came on, and the crop continued to grow unnaturally. Will the Minister say whether that expansion, though of course it meant that the bulk was greater, was profitable? I can conceive that if the crop is left in the ground too long there may be a direct wastage of sugar. It may not be convenient for the Minister to give a full answer on this occasion, but can he give us any sort of idea on the matter? There can be no doubt that, in connection with a crop of this kind, any progress that can be made by scientific methods, by finding out the best varieties of seed and the length of time to leave the crop in the ground, ultimately must have a great effect on the value of the crop. There have been articles in the Press as to varieties of seed. Is the  Minister certain that we are growing the best variety of seed, and that we have free access to it? Are there any experiments in the growing of sugar beet seed in order to improve on the present-varieties? The right hon. Gentleman told us about the acreage under cultivation in 1924, last year and this year, and the prospective acreage next year. Has the Department formed any sort of estimate of the acreage for the next five years, or up to the time when the subsidy ends? When the subsidy dies, naturally or otherwise, what is the effect likely to be on the acreage? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the increased acreage under cultivation so far reached. We had an amazingly interesting speech from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) and there have been interesting speeches from other parts of the House, but I was hoping that we might have had other Members coming in and taking part in the Debate. I noted the absence of the venerable and right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He might have been here to-day telling us all about the future, and how he could reconcile this subsidy—

Mr. MACPHERSON
He was here.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS
He could have given us his experience as to the result of this subsidy. Let me ask a few questions from another angle. A great deal has been said about this money going into the pockets of the English farmer and manufacturer and worker, at all of which I thoroughly rejoice, but we have not been told anything about Scotland, what is the acreage of land under sugar-beet cultivation there. Are there any factories in Scotland? Can we be told the amount grown per acre, on the average, in Scotland compared with England? What is the percentage of sugar in the crop in Scotland compared with England, and in what counties are the crops grown? Then I should like to know what are the prospects of a factory being established in the West of England. As a matter of fact, the climatic conditions and the soil of the West are singularly suitable. Does the Minister see any prospect of an enlarged area of sugar-beet cultivation in the West? We have been given some general statistics relating to the whole  country. There are so many acres under cultivation, so many tons grown to the acre, and so much is paid in subsidy. Can the Minister say precisely what percentage of cost goes to the production of one pound or one ton of sugar in this country? We ought to have that information in a clear and definite way. One speaker earlier in the Debate told us that approximately 20 per cent. of the sugar consumed in this country is grown in this country. What percentage of the sugar consumed in this country is grown within the Empire? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is dying to give me the information. It is a most important thing in these days to realise where our supplies come from. The hon. Member for Wrekin made a very able speech which for one moment almost made me suspect her of becoming a disciple of what is called Empire Free Trade. It was a very respectable and amiable thought, and one among many excellent things that she said—

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON
On a point of Order. May I ask what Empire Free Trade has to do with the subject?

The CHAIRMAN
Nothing at all.

Mr. WILLIAMS
I realise that, and if my hon. Friend had listened with the attention that he should, he would have known what was the point that I was raising. We have been told that 20 per cent. comes from this country. I want to know the amount from the Empire and the amount from foreign countries as well. The hon. Lady told us in her speech that we were approaching the time when, thanks to the subsidy, we may become absolutely self-supporting. I would like to see that, although I do not believe in subsidies and do not think it is the best way to do it. I think we could have done what the subsidies do in a cheaper and better way, with money coming in instead of sending it out. However, I, should be out of order in discussing that. On the particular page we are discussing it says that the reduced estimate of the cost of the subsidy in 1929 is £4,500,000. The Excise duties and existing rates is estimated to yield in 1929 £1,580,000. I would like to know if this figure is the Excise duty for sugar grown in Great Britain, so that we can balance the position and know the amount paid for sugar  in this country. Otherwise, we shall not know whether we can freely vote for this particular subsidy. I have asked a few very simple questions of various Ministers. I say frankly that I do not like subsidies or think it is the best way, but probably this particular Vote is less wasteful than many that we vote in Supplementary Estimates. It is a definite help in many ways to farmers, to employers and to the manufacturing industry. Might not the Government, who have received a great deal of goodwill, have come to the House and, instead of leaving this duty on a temporary footing as we are asked to do to-day, have made the declaration: "As far as we are concerned, it may be that we shall have to reduce considerably the subsidy, but let us come to a broad national agreement." This industry is prosperous, it is growing and has proved good in every way. The subsidy as it stands, in lieu of something better, has almost universal support. I believe there are one or two odds and ends below the Gangway who do not support it, but there are always homes for lost causes. Would it not have been possible, however, to lay it down as a national principle and to appeal to the House, as a national council, to lay it down on a permanent footing, and tell the industry that it can look ahead for 15 or 20 years? If that had been done the Government would have done a far better work than giving us a few details and a few figures. Even now it is not too late for them to make a big, broad pronouncement of policy on this question that will help agriculture as a whole.

Viscount WOLMER
I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary spoke so early in the day, because there are a number of questions which some of us on this side of the Committee were anxious to put. We get so few opportunities of questioning the Minister of Agriculture that we must avail ourselves fully of the opportunity to cross-examine the Government. The Minister of Agriculture, in laying his Estimate before the House, really told us very little. He gave us some very interesting statistics which we were all very glad to hear, showing what an enormous benefit this policy, which I am glad to say is now an agreed policy, has been to agriculture in certain  parts of the country. He did not tell us anything of the future, however, and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, although it is perfectly true that we have got, I think, 19 factories working and this coming year we can look to 300,000 acres under this crop, giving employment to thousands of men and women, yet, if you look at the map, you will see that these factories and this industry are to a large extent localised in a particular part of this country. What is the result? That it is very difficult to spread the cultivation of the crop in other parts of England. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) spoke of the difficulties of growing sugar beet in Cornwall. That is also true of many other parts of the country, and yet we are faced with this fact that, according to the present plans, the subsidy is coming to an end in 1934, much to the approval of hon. Members opposite who have always opposed it when they have had a chance. Whether they are going to have the courage of their convictions and oppose it to-night we shall see. I want to ask the Government whether they expect, whether anybody expects, that we are likely to see any addition to the number of these very great and expensive factories in present circumstances. Of course, I admit that if the Eynsham process could be developed, or any other process by which you could have a number of very much cheaper factories dotted over the country, it would entirely revolutionise the situation, but I gather from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon that; this is still problematical, and has no been proved on a commercial scale. We can look forward to the fact that then is practically no chance of an addition to the number of beet sugar factories of the type we know at present, because the subsidy is coming to an end so soon. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no chance of the sugar beet industry growing in those parts of England where it has not yet struck root and where at present there are no factories. What is the policy of the Minister for Agriculture in that respect? Because, although the results of this subsidy have been splendid as far as they have gone, I do not think that anybody who has agricultural interests at heart can be satisfied with the fact that there are whole counties not only in England  but in Scotland where the land and conditions are eminently suited to growing sugar beet which have no factory equipment to enable them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman did not say one word about his future policy. Even if Government supporters are so much against subsidies that they would be unable to indicate their willingness that the subsidy should be ultimately increased, surely it would be possible to say that, in the event of a factory being started in a new locality, a new subsidy of equal amount and duration with that given to the factories in the east of England would be extended to these new factories. Unless you do something of this kind you will not get factories extended appreciably in the west of England. I am well aware that we shall have the opposition of the watchdogs of the Labour party as well as the watchdogs of the Liberal party. It is quite sufficient for one to propose anything that is going to help agriculture to have the bulk of the Liberal party and of the Labour party against one. I understand the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to say that that remark is very unfair. The hon. Member has spent the greater part of his Parliamentary career in fighting this sugar beet subsidy, and has, I think, spoken against it and voted against it on every possible occasion, but this afternoon he sits silent and muzzled because his Government are faced with the responsibility of carrying out this national policy. That is one great advantage of the Labour party being in power. They have to face up to their responsibilities on these occasions, and when next the Conservative party is returned to power—which is not very far off—I assure the hon. Member for Burslem that when he rises to oppose the sugar beet subsidy, as he certainly will, we shall remind him of his action this evening. I recognise that in this matter the Minister of Agriculture is far in advance of the bulk of his party, although he has no sort of claim to be considered the originator of the sugar beet policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"] The originator was Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen. I think he was the first Minister of Agriculture to give encouragement and State financial assistance to the cultivation of this crop. The Labour party fought this policy tooth and nail in the past and  when they came into power in 1924 they mitigated it. The Conservative party carried it on in the mitigated form simply because we wanted continuity of policy. The Minister has said that in 1924 there were only 22,000 acres of land under this crop, whereas now there are going to be 300,000 acres, and he claimed that fact as an argument in favour of the particular form of assistance which the Labour party were willing to give. But it has nothing whatever to do with the particular form of assistance. What does affect the matter very much is that on a particular form of assistance we were able to get agreement between the two parties. We were able to tell the industry that there would be continuity of policy and that the Socialist party would not be obliged to reverse the policy. That is what has given the industry confidence, and has contributed towards enabling factories to be built and the acreage to increase. I commend the history of this industry to right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are dealing with the McKenna Duties.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
The Noble Lord is not allowed to discuss policy on a Supplementary Estimate. I have given him very wide latitude but I cannot allow him to go into all these matters.

Viscount WOLMER
I recognise that, Sir, and I apologise. I am afraid that I have been misled by the interruption of the hon. Member for Burslem.

Mr. MacLAREN
I have been most quiet.

Viscount WOLMER
I ask the Minister of Agriculture when he next deals with this matter, if he cannot do so to-night, to indicate to the industry what plans the Government have for extending the growing of sugar beet in the West and North of England. How much money are they spending in the experiments on the Eynsham system, and other important methods of treating beet, and how much money is being spent on plant breeding stations? It is clear that if we could get a type of beet that would mature earlier or later than the main crop it would be possible to extend the period of employment in the beet factories and also extend the acreage. I hope that when we next come to consider this subject  the right hon. Gentleman will not merely present us with a string of statistics, interesting as they are, but will indicate to us more fully that the Government have some further policy which is going to lead to the spread of this great industry throughout all England.

Mr. MacLAREN
I do not wish that any false impression should get abroad from the remarks made by the Noble Lord. It is true that on all occasions when this Vote has come up I have opposed it. I opposed it from its inception, and I do so to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will you divide against it?"] Very likely I shall be the only one to challenge a Division, and there is no good in wasting the time of the Committee by having a Division "all on my own." From the speeches on the other side, one would gather that this great industry is going to clean the soil and give a marvellous return, but at the same time we are told that if the subsidy is cut down this wonderful industry will be decimated, and will disappear. I hope it will, because any artificial industry which has to be kept up by pumping subsidies into it out of the taxpayer's pocket ought to disappear, and I would immediately destroy such an industry without any compunction whatever. We have heard a great deal about subsidising miners' wages, and subsidising the unemployed and so on, but here is a subsidy of £10,000,000 to £20,000,000 going into the beet sugar industry. I should be the last to object to public money being spent in this way if it fructified in the industry itself. But we know full well, on the confession of men who occupied responsible positions when the party opposite were in power, that every farthing we send into this industry—into the agricultural industry so-called—finally percolates into rent. The Noble Lord knows that. He was at cross purposes with me to-night but that not because I opened my mouth, because I did not interrupt him. He seemed to be very wroth with me, and I will tell him why. There is not a landlord in this assembly who does not feel, even though I do not open my mouth at all, that the principles for which I stand represents his destruction. The Noble Lord hated my looks, and that was what was wrong with him.

Viscount WOLMER
I assure the hon. Member that we have all tie most benevolent feelings towards him.

Mr. MacLAREN
I know, but behind all that there is hatred of what I stand for, and I merely intervene now to express these views despite what has been said from this side of the Committee this evening. I want to say this and I do not think I will be expelled with bell, book and candle for saying it—that I have a shrewd suspicion that the Minister of Agriculture even in this Government is a born Tory.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if we are to be allowed to follow the hon. Member in discussing this question of born Tories?

Mr. MacLAREN
That is merely a deviation in winding up the Debate. We are told that there has to be uniformity of practice—I think that is the legal phrase—and that we have to continue the subsidy because there has to be continuity of policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister is doing so, but I have always had my suspicions that, in his heart of hearts, he believes in this method of putting public money into an artificial industry which only stiffens the backs of monopolists.

Viscount WOLMER
He claims to be the father of it.

Mr. MacLAREN
He if a brave man. I do not like his child and I would hamstring it if I had the following here, and I would vote against this Estimate if a Division were challenged.

Major BRAITHWAITE
I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. This subsidy has proved one of the most beneficent legislative measures which the agricultural industry has had during the past five or six years. In the course of this discussion I do not think that enough credit has been given to the railway companies, following on the de-rating Measure passed by the last Government. That Measure has had a very good effect in relation to the policy concerning beet growing. The fall in the subsidy was calculated to have a detrimental effect on the production of beet, but with the rating relief and the freight relief given by the railways a great deal has been done to set off the fall in the subsidy.

Captain W. G. HALL
On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss de-rating in connection with this Estimate?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am following the speech of the hon. and gallant Member in order to see what point he proposes to make.

Major BRAITHWAITE
I do not wish to go outside the terms of your Ruling, Sir. I was merely pointing out that the last Government ought to have some credit for rendering very material assistance to this industry. There are some points which I should like to put to the Minister. I wish to know if the results from the sale of pulp have been satisfactory this year and if the farmers are getting good results from using it in the feeding of stock. I believe that has been an important factor in connection with the agricultural industry and has been of great service to farmers. I should also like to know if the Ministry are carrying on any research in relation to the problem of beet storage. That is one of the most important things in connection with the industry that could be carried on by the Ministry at the present time. It is desirable to know if at any of their stations they have any data and if they are in touch with the factories and giving assistance in that respect. This subsidy has been of immense value to farmers during the past season particularly in the North. We had a depressing time with regard to most cereals, but this crop has been in the main a great success. I hope that in continuance of this policy we shall see—possibly not this year, and possibly not by the present Minister of Agriculture but in a future year by a Conservative Minister of Agriculture—a policy which will give some definite line to the factories and will encourage the flow of capital into this industry. Everybody who has considered this policy has approved of it, except the hon. Member for Burslem, and I do not think he can have given it the amount of serious thought which it deserves. I believe that if he went more fully into the matter and considered the employment which is being given in this industry to many people who never had any work in agriculture before, he would agree that the money has been satisfactorily spent, and that this is a very good piece of legislation. I welcome  this subsidy heartily, and I only wish it were twice as large, because it is a means of subsidising employment, as opposed to the policy of creating unemployment which is being carried on by most of the Departments of the present Government.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
Certain important questions have been put from this side of the Committee. Are we not to have an answer on, at any rate, some of them? I have been sitting here for the greater part of the last two hours awaiting a reply.

Mr. N. BUXTON
If I have the permission of the Committee to speak again, I shall be glad to deal with the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) put a number of points, many of which I am afraid are not quite relevant to the proposal before the Committee, but some of which are very interesting. He asked whether there could not be some discrimination in regard to soil, and whether something further could not be done in regard to the selection of seeds. These very important technical points are being considered, and will, if possible, be included in the studies leading up to the forthcoming publication which will be one of the economic series knows as the Orange Books. When he asks me to forecast the acreage five years hence, I am afraid my powers are not equal to that, and he is as well able as any of us to judge of the expansion that is likely to take place. Let us hope it will continue as elastic as it has been during the last year. The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer) was also very curious about the future, and anxious to know what will be done in 1934. It is welcome to me to find that he considers that we as a Labour Government shall be responsible in 1934. He wanted to know—and this is a very relevant point—whether more factories are probable under the present Act. I think the inducement is rapidly becoming inadequate in the eyes of most investors, but it is not impossible, as there are still inquiries being made in regard to possible factories at certain places. I wish they might eventuate in regard to the West country, where we should all be only too glad to see a factory established. The Noble Lord felt that those lands which have not been sufficiently appropriate for beet  growing to lead to the formation of factories should somehow be brought under the influence of a special subsidy. I am afraid that sugar beet is no panacea for all the troubles of agriculture, and there are large parts of England, which of all the countries in the world are specially adapted to growing magnificent grass, where I think the sugar beet subsidy will not take effect, and I do not know that we should wish it to. It has had its effect in those parts which are most appropriate arid which were in view by both Governments, if I may put it in that way, which were interested in the initiation of this policy. With the exception of certain areas in the West, I think the Act has had about the effect which was desired and contemplated.

Mr. MACQUISTEN
Have the Department ever considered the possibility of extending the beet subsidy to something else, such as power alcohol, as has been done in France, Germany and America?

Mr. BUXTON
That proposal, and also the proposal of the Noble Lord, that some special subsidy should be devised, would, of course, have to be the subject of new legislation, and I should not be in order in talking about that. Nineteen factories have resulted from the Act, and I think that that roughly represents the desirable result which was contemplated by the authors. After all, 19 factories do lead to a very great public expense, and they do, on the other hand, mean an extensive trial of beet growing and of the conversion of beets into sugar. The experiment would not have been adequate if the number had been much less, but I should say that those who are interested in the matter regard it as an adequate experiment, an adequate try-out of the possibility of making sugar growing a self-supporting industry on a permanent basis. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) asked a question in regard to pulp, and I am glad to tell him that things have vastly improved in regard to the demand for pulp by our own growers. It was one of the weak spots in the situation that farmers did not appreciate dried pulp, and it went abroad, but the improvement is very marked.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
What percentage went abroad?

Mr. BUXTON
I do not recollect the exact percentage, but I could easily inform the hon. Member if he would like to know. In regard to research, the factories themselves pool their resources, and they are working with commendable energy at research.

Major BRAITHWAITE
Is the Ministry doing anything at all in that way?

Mr. BUXTON
Well, of course, many of the research institutions of the Ministry are indirectly benefiting.

Sir W. WAYLAND
Are they going in for it at Rothamsted?

Mr. BUXTON
I could not say yet whether the growing of sugar is specially being studied there, but the factories are so active themselves that I think they are adequately discharging what is possible in the sphere of research.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
There are one or two questions which are quite germane and in which I am interested, because I have been a party to sugar beet growing on my own estate in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture said that the establishment of the 19 factories up to date was a very desirable result, and in almost the same breath he stated that it was an adequate try-out of an experiment. What we would like to hear from him, as briefly as he wishes, is what he really thinks of the future with regard to this industry. In some parts of the country it has been very successful indeed. It is true that some parts, as we all know, are not suitable for it at all, and in many of the grass-growing districts no wise man would think of growing sugar beet, but other parts of the country are suitable, and there it has been a great success. In the districts with which I am personally acquainted, it is just a question of whether it is a success or a failure. It depends a great deal on some of the factors with which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt, though they have been mentioned on this side—the development of the beet itself, and also the effect of alterations in railway rates. In the districts which I know best, the question of the railway rates may make all the difference, the factory being some distance away, as to whether or not it is economic to carry beets to a  factory. We have had a speech earlier in the Debate showing that you can carry beets a quite considerable distance to the factory at Ipswich, and yet at the same time the profit left would be more than enough to make it worth while to grow them. In these other districts it is just on the margin of whether or not it is possible. The railway rates make a great difference, as does also the return from the actual percentage of sugar in the beet, which was a point raised by an hon. Friend behind me. We know from experience both in France and in Germany how by being stimulated and by improving the beet the percentage there has continually grown. The factor of railway rates and some of these other factors are the questions which are likely to determine whether the industry will be a permanent industry in this country, or how far it is only an experiment which is being tried for a moment and will ultimately pass away. What would be of value, if the Minister would give it, taking into account these factors, which must be before him at the Ministry of Agricultures is what he thinks the future for this industry is, how far, from that point of view, it is right to continue and prolong the subsidy, or what he thinks will be the end, aed if it is merely an experiment that will be done with before many years have gone by. He has not really given us a review from that point of view, and if we could get his own experience or view of the subject, it would be of value to the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the proposed factory at Taunton is progressing?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer all my questions, but if he will give me a reasonable assurance that he will let me know the details that he is unable to answer to-night in the course of the next day or two, where possible, and if he will also tell me now what is the percentage of Empire-grown sugar, which is a vital question—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
That would be entirely out of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS
I willingly accept your Ruling, but I was led away by  others mentioning the percentage of sugar grown in this country. I am not sure it was not the Minister himself; but I will now come back to order and apologise for having deviated. I asked some very important questions of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I realise that he may not be able to answer them to-night, and I will not press him on those matters if he will do what I think is always done by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in such circumstances, and say he has not got the information and will let me have the details later on. They were accepted as in order, and it is usual for a Minister to give them here and now, but I do not wish to delay the Estimate, and if the hon. Member will give me that assurance, that I may have these answers, it will save a lot of trouble in the future. There is a third point that I would like to emphasise, and that is that I do definitely ask the Ministry to give me the number of factories and the acreage under sugar in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been present most of the afternoon, and if he would give me those two details, I should be glad. It is just as important to develop the agricultural industry in Scotland as it is in any other part of Great Britain, and I think I have a right to have an answer to these questions.

Mr. BUXTON
I think I have answered the questions which are relevant to the proposal before the Committee, and the Chair will not allow me to deal with the general question. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has raised matters which are interesting and important, but they are matters of opinion, as to what is my view of the probabilities of the future, and how far railway rates are a factor in leading to an extension of the area under beet. All we can say is that factories are getting very well supplied, and as for the details, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the works on the subject of Mr. Venn, of Cambridge, and Mr. Bridges, of Oxford, which deal very thoroughly with it.

Dr. ADDISON
In answer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), there is one factory in Scotland, and 612 acres under beet.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next: Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Ways And Means

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Resolved,
 "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £5,410,250 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I propose to explain to the House briefly—for the matter does not call for elaboration—what is the scope and purpose of this Measure. The Bill is within a relatively small compass. It applies to Scotland only, and it is intended and designed to modernise, and to bring into harmony with present requirements, the law of Scotland in relation to the drainage of agricultural land. The two main provisions of the Bill are contained in Clauses 1 and 2, and they define the purposes of the Measure. The House will find on examination of these Clauses that they deal with the same problem, which, briefly stated, is the problem arising from the flooding of agricultural land in Scotland. Clause 1 gives to the owner or occupier of agricultural land which is being injured, or is in danger of being injured, through the failure of the owner or occupier of any other land to maintain banks, or to cleanse water courses, a statutory right and power to enter upon that other land and to have things put right on the land of his neighbour. Clause 2 gives to a public authority, namely, the Department of Agriculture  for Scotland, power to propose and carry out, subject to certain safeguards, schemes for drainage works. The aim of both Clauses is the same, and that aim is to secure, so far as possible, the more effectual drainage of agricultural land in order that it may have an increased utility and productiveness. The need for this Bill arises from the inadequacy of the existing how of Scotland as regards agricultural drainage, and it will enable the House to judge more readily what the Bill is designed to effect if I state what the existing law of Scotland is in the matter of agricultural drainage. As the law stands--and this is a matter upon which I hope there will be no controversy—the lower ground must receive the outfall or natural drainage of the upper ground, or, to use terminology with which we are familiar in Scotland, the inferior ground must receive the outfall of the superior ground. Even where the quantity of outfall is increased through agricultural improvements, so that a larger quantity of water is sent down from the superior ground to the inferior ground, the same rule applies. That is true, not only of surface water and of water percolating in the ordinary-way through the ground, but of running water in definite channels, that is to say, streams that are perennial and have an established course. That is the existing common law of Scotland, subject perhaps to this qualification, that in exceptional cases the courts, on being applied to, may give an equitable remedy. The experience of the law courts in that matter, however, is that the equitable remedy can be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances, and, when it is invoked, it usually results in very costly litigation, so that the remedy in a sense destroys itself. Apart from the common law of Scotland in this matter, there are certain statutory provisions, into which I have no intention of going in detail, but I think it right to mention the Land Drainage Act of 1847. In that year, the Legislature made provision for the improvement of outfalls. Sanction was given to persons who were interested to enter on other land—a principle which is being reaffirmed in this Bill in another form—and to create the necessary works to prevent excessive outfall coining from the high ground to  the lower ground. Under the Act of 1847, the procedure is cumbrous, expensive, calculated to entail costly litigation, and, what is perhaps a more valid reason than any for discarding it, the statute has proved almost entirely ineffective in practice. The position at the present time, therefore, is that by both the common law and the statute law of Scotland the lower proprietor has really no remedy against an excessive outfall of water coming on to his land from the land of an upper proprietor. The converse situation holds true, that where there is failure on the part of the lower proprietor to keep the waterways of his ground clear, and allows them to become silted up so that the water re-stagnates on the ground of the upper proprietor, the upper proprietor, as the law of Scotland stands, has no remedy either in common law or under statute law, except in circumstances which are very exceptional, and with which the House need not concern itself. 8.0 p.m. With that very general introductory statement of the position, I would like to examine for a moment Clauses 1 and 2 in a little more detail. The House will observe that the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the owner or occupier of agricultural land to require and secure the maintenance of banks and the cleansing of channels of watercourses on neighbouring lands. When I use the term "neighbouring," I do not mean neighbouring in the narrow sense. It is not confined to the case where the harm is being done on the land immediately adjacent. The watercourses of the land immediately adjacent may be quite sufficient, and yet the watercourses on land a little further away may be quite insufficient, and under Clause 1 it will be possible to deal with and find a remedy for a situation of that kind. Before the statutory power contained in Clause 1 can be invoked there is a condition precedent which must be satisfied, and that is that the land is being injured, or is in danger of being injured, from flooding through the failure of the neighbouring proprietor. I do not propose to detain the House by referring to the procedure which the Bill prescribes. It is all set out in the Bill, and its examination is more appropriate to a later stage; but there are one or two  points which it is appropriate to bring to the notice of the House at this stage. The cost of the operations to make the agricultural drainage effective is a charge imposed on the owner who is failing to discharge his obligation. That is undoubtedly a very important provision of the Bill. When I used the term "obligation" I do not mean legal obligation, because, as I have just explained, under the existing law there is no legal obligation, but I mean failure to discharge the natural obligation which arises and which ought to arise from the ownership of land. If this Bill receives the sanction of this House the situation will be this, that a landowner whose land is being injured through the default of a neighbouring landowner will be able, using the machinery of this Measure, to compel the defaulting landowner to fulfil the obligation which he ought to have fulfilled without any compulsion. A further point to which I think it is right to draw attention is that the Bill secures a right of appeal to the sheriff, that is, to a judicial authority, so that any matter in dispute failing amicable settlement can be decided by the sheriff on appeal by the party interested. I think I should give a word of explanation as to why we think it is necessary that these powers in Clause I should be conferred on owners of land. Since 1918 the number of occupying owners in Scotland has increased by 10,000. That has followed the break-up of many large estates. With their disappearance has disappeared estate management. When we had a number of tenant farmers holding under a common proprietor and under common estate management these difficulties of drainage were much more easy of adjustment than they are when a large estate has been broken up, and instead of tenancies we have a large number of occupying owners. That is why, although the law of Scotland has stood for a very long time as I have defined it, it has now become imperative if adequate protection is to be given that there should be some such power as we propose in the first Clause of this Measure. The second Clause, which is the major part, is intended to authorise the Department of Agriculture to propose and to carry out schemes of drainage works. Two purposes are contemplated; I am not going into the details, they are there  in the Bill. The purposes are, first, drainage works with a view to the improvement of agricultural land; and, second, drainage works to remedy or to prevent damage to land or buildings in landward areas in Scotland. The House will see on reference to the Measure that in every case a condition precedent must be satisfied. In the first case the condition precedent is that the agricultural land should be capable of improvement, and in the second case the condition is that the land or building in the landward area is being, or is in danger of being, flooded. Those conditions, which are inserted in the Bill, will prevent, as under Clause 1, any arbitrary use being made of the powers which the Bill confers. I should add, as regards Clause 2, that not only has the Department power to execute works as defined by the Bill, but the Bill also provides for the maintenance of the works when they are executed. There are two questions that may arise. The House may say, as regards Clause 2: What kind of schemes have you in contemplation? If you refer to the interpretation Clause, Clause 7, it will be found that the expression "drainage works" is given a very wide definition. As the definition stands, it would apply to field drainage and to any form of land drainage, but although the interpretation Clause is wide what we have in view is what is known as arterial drainage. What we contemplate is the deepening of the channels of existing watercourses mainly by the removal of obstructions, and further we contemplate the making of new watercourses. The purpose in each case is the same, namely, to prevent flooding. In certain areas of Scotland flooding takes place periodically. It may be described as seasonal in certain parts of Scotland. The flooding occurs mainly in the north-east and in the south-west. I am not going to detain the House by giving numerous illustrations of it, but may I just mention one? The River Spey is the most rapid river in Scotland, and I think I am right in saying it is the most rapid in Britain. If you take the stretch of 10 miles running roughly from Newtonmoor to Kincraig you will find that each year there is flooding of the agricultural land upon a most extensive scale. The effect of that has  been to bring down the vegetation of that neighbourhood to a mere marsh vegetation within the lifetime of a single generation. There has been very great depreciation in the value of arable and pastoral land in that neighbourhood. That is merely one illustration taken from the higher reaches of the river; but when you come to the lower reaches, nearer the sea, you will find that in 1928 the river in flood made for itself an entirely new channel to the west, endangering, I think, the villages of Garmouth and Kingston. Other streams which periodically overflow their banks are the Deveron and the Findhorn. When we come to the south-west of Scotland, we have the Annan, the Nith and the Cree and in the West of Scotland parts of the Clyde. In carrying out the schemes which the Department of Agriculture contemplate in this matter, there are one or two points of importance for which the Bill makes provision, and to which I should like to refer very briefly in general terms. First of all, the House will know that part of the cost is to be recoverable by the Department and to be apportioned among the lands comprised in the area to be affected by the scheme to which the Act applies. The remainder of the cost is to be borne by the State. In putting into the Bill a provision for placing part of the costs on the owner, we have proceeded upon the principle that the land-owner should pay in respect of the betterment of his land effected through the work executed by the Department of Agriculture. Another point of importance for which provision is made is that in fixing and apportioning the cost regard is to be had to the matters set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. As regards the apportioning of costs, the first point is the probable increase in value as a result of the operation. The second point is the estimated depreciation on the basis that there had been no undertaking at all. In other words, you impose a charge in respect of so much depreciation on the hypothesis that there was no undertaking. The words are: "(3) In fixing the amount of the cost recoverable by the Department and in apportioning that amount, or in apportioning the cost of maintenance among the lands comprising the area affected by the scheme, the Department shall have regard to any probable increase in the value of any such lands." That is the first point. The second important point is that the Department shall have regard to "any depreciation in the value of any such lands, which might be expected to occur if no such drainage works as are proposed in this scheme were undertaken." In respect of the estimated depreciation, we think that is an equitable principle, because it simply means that if the owner of land is going to have depreciation of his land stayed or stopped through the undertaking of the Department, it is right that he should pay a part of the charge in the same way as if there were a practical increment benefit. The third factor to be taken into account in fixing and apportioning the cost is any other benefit by way of relief on drainage operations. This is all contained in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill. The only other matter that I need to mention is that the Bill provides, on the other hand, that compensation shall be paid in respect of injury and damage caused through the operations, and there, again, in order that these matters will not be left to the uncontrolled arbitrament of a Government Department, provision is made for arbitration in respect of these matters. There is one other matter upon which it is perhaps right to say a word or two. The House will note that the carrying out of the drainage schemes authorised by the second part of the Bill is entrusted to the Department of Agriculture. That has been done deliberately and after careful consideration. We propose by this Bill to make the Department of Agriculture of Scotland the executive and administrative authority, and the reasons why the Government have so decided after very careful consideration is that in Scotland with one solitary exception we have no ad hoc drainage authorities, and that exception is in the case of the Pow Burn in Perthshire, under a local Act. That is the only instance in Scotland of an ad hoc land drainage authority. We have in Scotland nothing analogous to the Commissioners of Sewers in England, some of which go back to the time of Henry VIII and even earlier. The reason why you do not have ad hoc authorities in Scotland as in England is that there is a great difference in the natural conditions of the two countries. In Scotland, the natural fall of the rivers  is good; in England, the natural fall of the rivers is bad. To take only one illustration, the Spey, the total length of which is from 90 to 100 miles, has a fall of no less than 1,500 feet from its source to its mouth at sea level. The position really is that, while in Scotland we have our own problems, with marsh and moss and bog, we have nothing corresponding to the fenland of the Eastern Counties of England. That is why in Scotland, as I have said, we have no ad hoc drainage authorities that we could press into the service of this Measure. The second reason why we propose that the carrying out of the major part of this Measure should be entrusted to the Department of Agriculture is that we take the view, and we think it is confirmed by experience, that an ad hoc authority is unsuitable. We take the view that the county council in Scotland is not the best authority, owing to local influences which it would be difficult to disregard, and we think it better that the matter should be dealt with outside the machinery of local administration. There is a third reason why we propose a public authority, and that is that, of course, under modern conditions, this matter of arterial drainage cannot he left to the individual owner. In former days it was no doubt true that great work was done in Scotland by individual owners. We do not dispute that there were enlightened landlords when labour was cheap and when the prices of produce were relatively high. We do not dispute that there were enlightened landlords who carried out at their own expense very valuable schemes of arterial drainage. I confess that I was amazed, when looking into this matter a short time ago, to find that in the old maps in Scotland there are indications of arterial drainage in practically every county in Scotland, carried out many years ago, when conditions were vastly different from the conditions that obtain to-day. If it were germane to to-night's Debate, I could give illustrations of them. There is, for example, the Laigh of Moray, which was drained arterially many years ago, and is now one of the most fertile districts of Scotland. Again, you have the How of Mearas, in Kincardineshire, and it is not generally known that a great deal of marshy land around Loch Leven was arterially drained  and brought into proper condition. To mention one other instance, a great experiment in arterial drainage was carried out in what is known as the Moss of Kincardine by a very celebrated Scottish judge of the 18th century, Lord Karnes. He was a landowner as well as a judge—they combined the two things in those days—and he carried out an amazing scheme of arterial drainage by diverting one of the tributaries of the Forth, until he was interdicted in his own court because he was spoiling the salmon fishing of some neighbours. The days, how-over, of ventures of this kind by individual owners are past, and, as we must have some form of public authority to carry out the kind of scheme that we contemplate in this Measure, we came deliberately to the conclusion that it was much better that it should be done by the Department of Agriculture than by the local authority. I do not propose to enter into the question of the cost entailed by this Bill. There is a Financial Resolution to be moved afterwards, if the House is pleased to give a Second Reading to this Bill, on which the matter of cost will be explained. I would only say that the cost is relatively small compared with the benefit which we anticipate will result if this Bill becomes law. I have already referred to Lord Kames as one of the pioneers in this matter of arterial drainage. I made the other day an interesting discovery. I found that in the year 1779, Lord Kames wrote an essay on "A Board for improving Agriculture." What he wanted to do was to set up a Board something analogous to our modern Department of Agriculture. That was away back in the year 1779, at a time when trouble WAS developing and becoming acute between us and America. That great old Scottish Judge then wrote: "A small share of the money and attention bestowed on raising colonies in America would have done wonders at home." There are many of us, on this side of the House at any rate, who think that that was not only a very simple but a very wise observation. I, for one, believe that, if we would spend on agriculture at home, on arterial drainage at home, on every aspect of agriculture at home, one fraction of what we spend on projects abroad, we should accomplish a great work for  the development of our country and, incidentally, for the relief of the most pressing problem of our time, the problem of unemployment. Therefore, I commend this Bill to the consideration of the House, not only because it is a good Bill in itself, not only because it is demanded and required by the agricultural community of Scotland, not only because it is going to improve agriculture in Scotland and help the agricultural community, but because we believe it to be a contribution, and a not unsubstantial contribution, to the problem of unemployment. For these reasons I hope that, whatever criticism may be offered on the details of the Measure, the Bill may receive the support of all sections of the House and obtain a Second Reading.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR
My first word must be one of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate to this House, and to express what I am sure will be the feeling of all Members of the House, that his first speech in explaining a Measure of some importance to Scotland has been one of clarity, and meets with the approval of Members in every part of the House. He has truly said that arterial drainage in Scotland is a matter which should receive the attention of the House. It is obvious to those who know the circumstances of agriculture in that country that, if you improve your system of drainage, you must at some point take steps to see that the arterial drains are clear and efficient for carrying off the drainage. Our country has been less affected by that problem than across the border, because of the nature of the fall of most of our streams, but we can all agree that the time is ripe for some attempt to improve arterial drainage. I shall not enter upon the legal points, which will be dealt with by others, but, speaking as one interested in agriculture, and with a little knowledge of some of the circumstances which attend the flow and outfall of some of the rivers, I want the House to realise that the Bill for the first time is going to give the right to certain individual owners to enter a complaint against an adjoining owner, that it will allow of their taking steps to impose a considerable outlay on the part of another owner, and, while that outlay may be justified, I think the House will agree that it is our duty to be quite clear in our minds, that the machinery that is  to be used for this purpose is going to be fair to the individual, and that the circumstances of each case are going to be investigated by someone of sufficient technical knowledge to be able to express an opinion which is of real value as to the benefit to be derived from the proposed alteration and expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that within recent years a large number of the bigger estates have been broken up and that in many cases the agricultural lands are held by owner-occupiers in comparatively small holdings. If I am right, clearly you have instances where this land may be held by a man who has used every pound of his credit to obtain the ownership of a particular farm abutting upon one of our great streams. He is no doubt in a position of responsibility not only for the maintenance of his own agricultural land but for the protection that he ought to give to his neighbours. But I am a little disturbed when I think he may have a complaint made which may not be entirely justified. No doubt the appeal to the Sheriff is one which we are long acquainted with, but I should like to feel satisfied before the Bill is sent to a Committee that, in addition to the complaint of the owner or the tenant abutting, when it goes to the Sheriff he will have the advantage of some really practical advice in coming to a decision. Of course, the Department of Agriculture, which is to be the main body used in framing the schemes, may, no doubt, have at its command engineers with a knowledge of draining, but in forming a big scheme such as one to do with the drainage of an area like the Spey, where undoubtedly grave and difficult technical problems will have to be solved, I would plead with him to consider whether it would not be essential to have at the command of the Department the advice of technical engineers, who cannot be found in the Department itself in the present instance but must be brought in from outside. The Department of Agriculture is, in many instances, the owner and occupier and the responsible Department for a large agricultural area. I am not going to assert for a moment that when they come to deal with problems where their property abuts upon the property of others, they will act unfairly or  unjustly, but I think it would greatly facilitate the acceptance of this scheme by the agricultural community if they felt that, if they had any idea of grievance in the action of the Department, there should be some provision made for an appeal beyond their decision. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Department of Agriculture was deliberately chosen because he thought a local authority was not very suitable for looking after this problem. I am a little uncertain as to whether that is really the case. Flooding in our rivers happens with great suddenness. You get a cloudburst in the high hills somewhere beyond Kincraig, which affects the flow of the river, and damage happens with great rapidity, and if provision is to be made with equal rapidity, is it not the case that that could be done through some local contact a little nearer the point than a Department situated at Edinburgh?

Mr. KIRKWOOD
Do you mean that it would prevent the cloudburst?

Sir J. GILMOUR
No, but you could deal with the effects of the cloudburst with greater rapidity than if you centralised too much the provision for a problem of this kind. Quite clearly, difficulties may arise in respect of a river such as the Tay, where there are sections in which artificial boundaries have had to be built. These artificial boundaries, unless they are periodically inspected, are gradually worn away, either by the action of rats or rabbits, or by a small breakage which may appear of very small moment to the little farmer on the spot. It is essential that this House should know that if the Department is going to be responsible for this matter, some definite officer in the district is going to make periodical inspections of that problem. In the first Clause of the Bill the complaint is made by one proprietor against another, or, it may be, by one proprietor against a group of proprietors. The problem of putting right the trouble may be a very expensive one. It seems to me that in this case there is, under Clause 1, no possibility of any part of that expense being met by the State. Obviously, under a scheme provided for in Clause 2 it is a different matter. Take the case of the small man. I know of the case of a small farmer on the banks of the Tay  who, if his bank is broken, will find it quite impossible, even with complete bankruptcy, to meet that problem. I see nothing in this Bill to deal with a problem of that kind unless, having found a situation of that character, you are intending to transfer it to Clause 2, so that under a carefully thought-out scheme you can deal with the problem. Damage to individual property, while it may be of a devastating character as far as the particular part of the property is concerned, may also affect the public highway or the neighbouring properties below; and, if left too long, the damage might even be carried further. If in Committee we can safeguard some of these problems, I see no reason why we should not, all of us, co-operate for the purpose of improving the system of drainage in Scotland, and, as far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we will try our best to do so. I think that sometimes an improvement in a stream may be thought by some people to be of greater value than it really is. I am anxious to repeat that I hope that in coming to decisions on structural alterations, which will cost a considerable sum of money, the Department will obtain the very best advice possible. Unfortunately, we have in Scotland to-day too much land free from flooding, which is perhaps not being cultivated to its fullest extent, and it may well be that in some cases it would be the height of folly to squander further money in an endeavour to deal with some areas which admittedly are being flooded, but which, even if they were de-flooded, would not be of sufficient agricultural value to warrant the outlay. With these reservations, and with the hope that my right hon. Friend in Committee will be prepared to consider in a friendly way, and, I hope, in a spirit of co-operation, Amendments on these points, I have nothing further to say.

Mr. MACPHERSON
I should like, first of all, to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) in extending a very hearty welcome in the Debates of this House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Our friendship has been one of many years standing, and I am delighted to think that I was present in this House when I heard him  make his first speech in it. I think the House will agree with me that his speech was a Second Reading speech which has rarely been equalled in this House, and I think equally rarely have we had so lucid an explanation of a very difficult problem. The Bill, he told us, was divided into two parts, Part A which deals with the individual, and Part 2 which deals with the area. I think it would be a perfectly legitimate criticism to make of the first part of the Bill that it was more of a legal reform than an agricultural remedy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate explained to us, in discussing the first part of the Bill, how the law of Scotland stood, and he made it plain to me, at any rate, that it was high time that the law should be reformed. From that point of view the introduction of the Bill, as far as this part of it is concerned, is indeed highly desirable. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok when he says that when you are dealing with the property of any individual, as you are dealing with it under Part 1 of this Bill, the circumstances should be fairly investigated. There is no doubt in my mind that a cantankerous occupier might give a very bad time to his neighbour if you allowed him free scope under the first part of the Bill. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, if he is in charge of the Bill in Committee upstairs, will be asked to see to it that fair safeguards are inserted so that there can be no abuse of a Clause of this kind. It is true that there is an appeal to the sheriff under this part of the Bill. There are sheriffs and sheriffs, and I think that when dealing with a highly complicated question of this sort, it would not be too much to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether it would not be advisable to include assessors when a question of this kind is raised and there is an appeal. It is too large a burden to place upon the shoulders of one man to investigate difficult and abstruse problems of this kind. I should be very willing to support any scheme of that kind as far as it is possible to prevent any abuse of the powers under this Clause. With regard to the second part of the Bill, it is obviously what my right hon.  Friend the Secretary of State for Scot-land has called his contribution to the solution of the agricultural problem in Scotland. Frankly, I do not think it is much of a contribution. Take the amount of money that is asked for under this Bill. It is only £100,000, and 50 per cent. of it will very likely be collected, as far as I can make out, locally by means of rates or otherwise. It is not a Bill of universal application to all places in Scotland where drainage may be proved necessary. It is a Bill strictly limited in scope. I understand the Lord Advocate to have given the only examples which will be brought under the scheme. Am I right in understanding that? He cited the case of the river on whose banks I was born. I know that district particularly well. There is no district in Scotland where the depredations of the rapid river Spey has been so marked as in that part of its course. I know that what he said is true. In that particular case there would be very great advantage under a scheme of this kind. That is one part of the scheme. As to the other part, there is the Deveron, the Findhorn and the Kelvin. As far as I can make out, the scheme is going to be very limited in its scope. Not only is it to be limited in scope, but that scope is to be limited to a certain period of years. The scheme is to be in existence for five years only, so far as the second part of the Bill is concerned. I hope that I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman. I am willing to admit that a great amount of preliminary work has been done in engineering surveys, and I am prepared to accept the fact that a great many drainage schemes may be in existence, but I am still far from agreeing that it is a wise thing to limit the number of years within which the scope of working is to be effective. To take another point of criticism, I am not at all sure that it is a wise thing to give complete control to any State department in this respect. Apart from the fact that there is an appeal on the question of costs, under the second part of the Bill, the Department of Agriculture is given complete control of the whole scheme.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston)
Part of it.

Mr. MACPHERSON
The Lord Advocate said that they had deliberately introduced the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is upon its trial. Had it been the Board of Agriculture, instead of using the word "deliberately," I should have said that they had done it with malice aforethought. I am willing to give the Department of Agriculture a fair chance. The only explanation which can be given for dragging in a Department of State in this way is probably the explanation which has been given by my right hon. Friend. I agree with what has been said by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. I am certain that a large local body, knowing local conditions, would in many cases be far more effective to deal with questions of this kind than a Department of State in Edinburgh, not knowing the local conditions and without any precise knowledge of the agricultural conditions as they affect that particular locality. I am, however, prepared to give the Department of Agriculture a chance. It is a new board, which has been recently reconstituted, and it may be that it will be effective, but as I am not sure about that my opinion is held in abeyance until after the Second Reading or the Report stage. If I find things are not as right as I think they ought to be, I shall be prepared to support Amendments dealing with this particular part. 9.0 p.m. There is another criticism which I should like to make. The Lord Advocate laid down three canons which were to guide the sheriff when he was considering an appeal or an arbitration. I think it is a very dangerous thing to lay down canons of that kind. I do not see how they can guide anybody. One seemed to be contradictory of the other, and I can foresee all sorts of difficulties arising when the arbitrator or the sheriff, as the case may he, is asked to decide.

Mr. JOHNSTON
Not the sheriff. Part II of the Bill is not concerned with the sheriff.

Mr. MACPHERSON
It is arbitration. In Part I of the Bill it is the sheriff and in Part II it is arbitration. The only appeal on arbitration is on the question of costs. Once the Department has fixed upon its scheme, that scheme is never  varied. I am sure of it. Under the Bill the Department of Agriculture has the power to settle a scheme once for all, and upon the scheme itself there is no appeal, no right to go to arbitration, however much the local authority or the local people concerned may object to the scheme. The Department of Agriculture can say: "It is our scheme. It has been settled. It is the law of the land, and it cannot be altered." It is only on the question of compensation costs that an appeal to an arbitrator or a court of arbitration arises. The Under-Secretary of State, quite rightly, pointed out that the ultimate control of this scheme is in Parliament. What does the Bill say? The Bill, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Clause which one associates with the dismissal of judges. If a judge is to be dismissed, or a question as to his ability or otherwise is raised in Parliament it must be by an Address from both Houses. That is exactly what is in this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON
Either House?

Mr. MACPHERSON
Either House. What does it matter? What happens is that the scheme which has been settled by the Department of Agriculture is laid before the House of Commons. There is no chance of discussion. It is by an Address of this House of Parliament that this scheme can be altered. I should be prepared to support any Amendments on Report stage which will alter that and give the House real and effective control over any scheme of this kind. It cannot really be in the mind of the Government that any Department of State should have the final say in what may affect the whole future of the country so far as agriculture is concerned. That cannot be good doctrine, and I hope to see it altered if it is at all possible. Clause 2 of this Bill is departmentalism run mad. I thought that this Government at least would give the House of Commons a greater share in governing the country, but this Bill, which is the first contribution they have made towards an agricultural policy, really takes away from the people of the country their fair right of judgment on particular matters and places that right, that final decision, not on the people of the country as a whole but on a Department of State in Edinburgh.

Mr. McKINLAY
Who controls the Department?

Mr. MACPHERSON
The Secretary of State controls the Department. The fact remains that, instead of having free and adequate discussion, we are to have these schemes laid on the Table of this House. We know what has happened in hundreds of cases where this procedure has been followed. They have never been heard of again, and these schemes will practically be taken away from the control and judgment of the representatives of the people. With these criticisms, which I think are justifiable, I welcome the Bill, and I shall do all that I can to perfect it during Committee and Report stages. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the party to which I belong when I say that we regard drainage as one of the most essential improvements so far as agriculture is concerned in Scotland. We realise that the drainage of smallholdings may not come directly under this Bill, which is on a bigger scale and has to do with arterial drainage, but we welcome it, and if the Bill is carefully thought over by all hon. Members and their minds are applied to improving it in Committee it will he of great benefit to agriculture as a whole.

Mr. BROOKE
I should like to join in the chorus of welcome which has been accorded this Bill from all sections of the House. It is going to deal with what I believe to he one of the most serious and damaging factors in agriculture at the present moment. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has described it as a puny and small contribution. I have been reading recently a considerable amount of literature on agriculture issued by the party to which the right hen. Gentleman belongs, and in every one of the treatises I have read a good deal of stress is laid upon the urgent necessity, the immediate need, of the question of the drainage of agricultural land being undertaken as speedily as possible. I should like to have heard from the right hon. Member in what way the powers of this Bill are puny and small. In one part of his speech he complained that too many drastic powers are being given to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. MACPHERSON
I do not like to interrupt, but what I was trying to show  was that it was a puny contribution from the point of view of money. Only £100,000 is being spent.

Mr. BROOKE
I stand corrected, and I am glad to know that the right hon. Member does not regard it as a small and puny contribution. That was the impression I got, and when he went on to complain in the latter part of his speech of the large and drastic powers which are being given to the Department of Agriculture I could not quite reconcile the complaint in the earlier part of his speech with the complaint he made later on. I was glad to hear the welcome given to the Bill by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. This Bill is going to be regarded as a nonparty question. My division, which is a large county area in Scotland, is suffering from flooded areas, and every authority on agriculture, the farmers themselves, agricultural workers, and smallholders, and everybody who speaks with any authority on the question of agriculture, are all agreed that a Bill of this kind is vital and urgent. Nobody in my division who is interested in the problem at all is offering any opposition to the Measure in any way whatsoever. I am not a country dweller and I have no very intimate knowledge of the agricultural industry, but it does not require a man to have any knowledge of the day to day work of agriculture to realise the great need for this Measure and the wastage which is going on on our countryside. One has only to walk through some of the larger counties in Scotland, through the eastern portion of the county which I have the honour to represent, and the ordinary powers of observation which one possesses will prove how urgent and necessary it is that the powers in this Measure should be put into operation at the earliest possible moment. To many of my constituents at any rate it will come as a boon and a blessing. The Kelvin Valley runs through a great part of my Division, and I have just returned from an inspection of the flooded areas. Curiously enough, one of my agricultural constituents, who is deeply interested in this Measure, has sent me a photograph of part of the flooded area, and he describes it as a familiar scene. It is a very depressing and saddening sight to see scores of acres of some of the  best agricultural land in Mid-Scotland, land which is rich in alluvial deposits, completely submerged by floods from the River Kelvin. If you could take a bird's eye view of the Kelvin Valley which I understand is to be included in the scheme proposed under this Bill, you will see that roads have been washed away, walls down, fences almost submerged and often, corn stacks floating about. Even the railway line which runs through part of the area is in serious danger of being undermined by the condition of the land. That means that there is a prodigious waste. All that waste could be prevented, and could have been prevented in the past if the powers contained in this Bill had been given to the Department of Agriculture or to the old Board of Agriculture. I am informed that there is a serious loss of cattle, and that there is very great damage to land and to property, and some of my hon. Friends who know that countryside pretty well say that there has even been great danger to human life from the floods there. It is not simply the fact that this flooding is a new problem which has presented itself for the first time to the country. It is not the fact that the floods occur only rarely or once or twice in a generation. I am informed that the flooding occurs eight and even 10 times in a year and that it has been taking place almost on the present huge scale during the last 30 years. Yet in all that period no adequate steps have been taken by any previous Government to cope with it. One right hon. Gentleman who has spoken seemed to have some fear in regard to Clause 1, under which power is given to an owner to compel an adjoining owner to drain the adjoining land. That, power, is given, not only to owners, but to tenants. I have been informed by several of my constituents, especially those on small farm lands, Who have themselves been under-taking small drainage work, that often the work that they have completed at their own expense has, been nullified either because the adjoining owner has refused to take any action on his part of the land, or because the outlet into the arterial drainage has not been big enough and the arterial drainage itself has become choked. This Bill, I think for the first time, gives the tenant or the owner power,  if he is suffering from the inactivity of an adjoining tenant or owner, to see that proper drainage is undertaken on the adjoining land. I believe that the protection of both parties is adequately provided for in the appeal to the sheriff. The Bill says that before the sheriff gives his decision he has to be satisfied as to the complaint, and must have before him authoritative information as to the work to be undertaken and the condition of the land. I hope I can make an appeal before I sit down. I want to reverse the usual practice of this House. It is generally the constituent who appeals to his Member for help. On this occasion I happen to have as one of my constituents the Under-Secretary of State, who, I believe, is to be responsible for seeing some of these schemes carried out. I want to ask the Under-Secretary to see that the River Kelvin and the constituency that I represent get their fair share of the benefits of the Bill. We do not want more than our share but only our proper proportion. Every agricultural authority in my Division, a large number of farmers, smallholders and agricultural workers, have assured me that they are giving their full support to the Bill. They are expecting great benefits from it. Because of that, and because I believe that the Bill is going to render great service to the agricultural community in Scotland, I give it my full support, and I hope that the House will give it a speedy Second Reading.

Mr. SKELTON
I rise to deal with only one point. First, I would like, as a fellow member of his profession, to add my word of congratulation to the learned Lord Advocate for his most interesting and, if I may say so, most attractive maiden speech. The one point with which I want to deal is this: I congratulate the Government upon the main provision of Clause 2, with its recognition of the fact that under modern conditions there are certain large expenditures by way of capital on the land in which State finance is necessary. But I confess that I am a little anxious with regard to the relation between Clause 2 and Clause I. If, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the Clause 2 schemes, where Government  assistance and finance play a part, are to be confined to schemes of considerable dimensions, then I fear we may find individual farmers, or small proprietors of any sort, under the operation of Clause 1 forced into very heavy expenses which they cannot themselves face. As I read the Bill first I thought that Clause 2 was not going to be confined to very large schemes, and therefore I thought that the area on which Clause 1 would operate was correspondingly small. But if you have Clause 2 schemes, only on a first-rate scale danger may be incurred because of the present form of Clause 1. Let me give, as an example, a case in my own constituency. Many Scottish Members must know the town of Blairgowrie and the River Ericht which runs through it. A couple of miles below the town a bank of the river has, in the course of years, crumbled away to the extent of 400 or 500 yards. Immense damage is being done, not only by seasonal flooding, but as a result of the absence of the bank great boulders and quantities of gravel are now beginning to cover a very considerable expanse of agricultural ground. That particular farm happens to belong to a small trust. The total expense of rebuilding the bank would be entirely out of contemplation, in view of the funds available in the trust. Under Clause 1 any of the main proprietors or occupiers might come and insist upon the reconstruction of those 400 or 500 yards of bank, which work, I am told, will cost at least £2,000. I do not pretend to give detailed proposals at this moment, but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary, whether it is not possible to insert in Clause 1 provisions under which Government finance could also be available? One can foresee many cases where the burden upon an individual farmer, owning three or four hundred acres of land in which the river bank has given way, will, as a result of his neighbours being able to call upon him to repair the damage, be immense. It is to be noted that, among the matters for consideration of the Sheriff under Clause 1, the financial capacity of the defaulting owner to deal with the situation is not mentioned. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether the application of Government money under Clause 1 should not be automatic as it  is in the case of Clause 2. I suggest that it is worthy of most serious consideration whether provision should not be made so that there might be some method by which, if necessary, the assistance of a Government grant should be given. I do not think that would be any assault on the principle of the Bill, because, after all, the difference between Clauses 1 and 2 is only a matter of degree. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the actual facts in regard to drainage in Scotland he will find that, unless some provision is made for Government assistance, even in Clause 1 cases, the Government may find themselves—quite against their own wishes I am sure—placing great hardships in particular cases on those owners of land whose particular part of the river is causing damage to others. Those are the only substantive points that I wish to raise. There are many other points which could be raised in Committee, but I do warmly congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on introducing the Bill. I hope that, while turning their attention to the question of arterial drains, which is vital from the point of view of field drainage, the greater will make them turn their attention to the less, and that they will not forget the pressing and permanent problem of field drainage in Scotland and the vast sums of money required for it.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR
I rise to join in the general welcome which this Measure has received in all parts of the House. I am not speaking at the moment, though I shall have a few words to say presently, about the use which is likely to be made of it, but I am grateful for and delighted at what I conceive to be the general purposes of a Bill. I think the Secretary of State and his colleagues deserve congratulation upon taking a real step in the right direction in dealing with one of the urgent aspects of the agricultural problem. In the past it has not been urgent, because, as the Lord Advocate has said, our rivers are faster. We have not until recent years felt so much the need for a large scheme of arterial drainage in Scotland, though it has for many centuries existed and been apparent to the people in England. It is for the very reason that improvements have been  made in land drainage, and particularly in hill drainage owing to the growing importance of sheep grazing in Scotland, and that large numbers of hill drains are being put in carrying the water down to the lower ground where the arterial drainage has been quite inadequate to carry it away, that the problem is now getting acute. If, as I hope and believe is the case, the Government really do intend to tackle the urgent problem of land drainage, then it becomes all the more necessary as a first step that the Government should have introduced so wisely and rightly this Bill for tackling arterial drainage, so that the channels shall be provided by which the additional water can be carried into the sea. There are various Committee points with which we shall have to deal when the Bill reaches that stage, but there are one or two points which I wish to raise of more general importance. I hope we shall consider very carefully in Committee the burden that this Bill is likely to throw upon the individual owners and occupiers of land. There are many thousands of owners who are very small people and who are passing through a time of very acute depression. This depression is particularly difficult to encounter in the case of those owners who bought their property at very high rates and who have very heavy burdens of mortgages upon them at present. Of course, it may be said by those who dwell in cities and do not understand rural problems, that they will get the benefit of the expenditure and will be able to pay for it out of those benefits, but those benefits will take a very long time to accrue. When the land has been wet and sour for many years it takes a good deal of nursing, liming, and manuring before you can get it into good heart and get any return from it. Therefore, I particularly urge, in regard to these payments which have to be made and the rate of 5 per cent. per annum to be imposed under Subsection (6) of Clause 2, that they should be graduated and be made as low as possible in the first five or seven years when there would be very little return to the owner or occupier from expenditure. There is another point with which the Lord Advocate did not deal and with which no one else has dealt, but which  strikes me as deserving of general support. It is provided that the Crown lands should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. As I read that, it seems to me that a private landlord or the occupier of agricultural land having water coming on to it from Crown estates or estates in the possession of the Department of Agriculture—and it should be remembered that between them they are among the half-a-dozen largest landlords in Scotland—will have no redress and will not be able to take advantage of the Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON
May I draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the last words of Clause 5, which say that nothing shall be done without the consent of His Majesty or the Government Department? I think there will be absolutely no difficulty.

Sir A. SINCLAIR
I do not think that will be very much comfort to the occupier or owner of land. I hope the Secretary of State will consider the matter again, because I honestly do not think, if he goes to an owner or occupier of agricultural land in Scotland and tells him that he will have no statutory rights, but will be able to go to the Department and fling himself on its mercy and ask it to do something to help him, that that owner will consider it adequate. Owners would rather have a statutory right. There may be some technical difficulty, but I ask that the question of conferring upon them, as upon all other owners and occupiers of land in Scotland, a statutory right should be considered. I am a little disquieted about the amount of legal costs involved in the various Sub-sections of the Bill. There is, for example, in regard to the question of distributing the cost of the scheme among those affected, a provision that there should be an appeal to arbitration. The arbiter will have to he paid heavy fees. I am merely putting this forward as a point which might be considered. If proof has to be laid, it may be extremely expensive—even more expensive than proceedings in Court. Could we not bring in the Land Court in this connection? That would be a cheap and easy method, and the Land Court consists of people who have a great knowledge of land all  over Scotland. The Under-Secretary may say that if that were done there would be an appeal to the Court of Session, but it would be possible to enact specially that in cases of this kind the decision of the Land Court should be final. Under Sub-section (7) it is provided that if there is a dispute over the compensation, either party may go to a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session to have an arbiter nominated. That is a costly proceeding merely in order to have an arbiter appointed. Surely there must be some simpler and less expensive way. Again, in the case of the acquisition of land, there is to be an appointment made from a panel of arbiters. That system works very well in many cases, and I am not making any general criticism against panels of arbiters, but there are cases in which arbiters have been brought into counties of which they know nothing. The Under-Secretary and I know of a case in which some extraordinary valuations were made by a man who did not know the circumstances of the particular county with which he was dealing. The Land Court would have a better general knowledge of the conditions all over Scotland than any other body. Different arbiters will give different decisions, and I suggest that a much fairer and stricter standard would be obtained if the Land Court decided these cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) referred to the fact that under Clause 2 the Department of Agriculture had the whole control of the scheme and that there was no appeal. I am very far from saying that we should hamper or restrict the action of the Department of Agriculture, and I am sure try right hon. Friend takes exactly the same view, but I do not like the provision under which the only form of appeal, the only opportunity of revising the decision of the Department, is that every scheme is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House presents an address to His Majesty within 28 days, the scheme is to be annulled. Under that provision, if the House of Lords chose to vote down a scheme which had been thought out by the Department, on which a great deal of time and money had been expended, and which was of real importance to a district, then the whole of that time and money would be wasted and that district  would be deprived of the benefits of the scheme. I do not like that part of the Bill, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary to see if some provision cannot be introduced by which, if the Department of Agriculture is to be subject to some form of appeal, that appeal should be to a small expert body which could give a decision quickly on the general outlines of a scheme—a body to which local people can appeal if they did not approve of the scheme instead of the method of laying each scheme before both Houses of Parliament. When we come to the use which is to be made of this Bill, as opposed to the character and purpose of the Bill itself, I find myself less enthusiastic in its support. We are giving a powerful weapon to the Government, and I ask the Under-Secretary what use is he going to make of it? Are we only going to drag on during the next five years with schemes on the Spey and in the South and West of Scotland when we have thousands of acres all over Scotland waterlogged and waiting to be reclaimed from river and sea. I ask hon. Members to consider what is being done abroad. Look across the North Sea and see the Zuider Zee and the Haarlem Meer being reclaimed. In 25 years, as the result of a continuous policy, Holland has reclaimed 250,000 acres, and in 60 years Belgium has reclaimed 1,000,000 acres. In 60 years Denmark has reclaimed 500,000 acres of forest and 1,000,000 acres for agriculture; Germany and France are going on the same lines, whereas in Great Britain our land is going back in use instead of being more and more developed as the years go past. On the other hand, our industries are depressed and the figure of unemployment is mounting up year by year. Every year we vote fresh millions, not for productive expenditure, but merely for the relief of unemployed men and women. Why cannot we bring in agriculture to redress the balance? The Lord Advocate in a very able and eloquent speech referred to the opinion of Lord Karnes and quoted him as saying that if only we had spent a little more on the development of our soil at home, instead of so much upon the American colonies it would have been much better for the country. Why does not the Lord Advocate preach that doctrine  to his own Government? But it seems that the Government's vision is narrowed to such miserable limits that only £100,000, of which £50,000 is State money, is going to be spent on a Measure which could be made, not merely a means of getting more production from the soil of Scotland, but a means of dealing with, at least, one important aspect of the problem of unemployment. Here we have a great new, glittering, powerful machine, but we have no petrol, or at any rate, we have only £50,000 worth of petrol to make it go. What has happened to other schemes in Scotland? There have been many schemes. There was the Flanders Moss scheme which was going to reclaim land and make it worth £3 an acre. That was a business proposal and the Joint Executive of the Distress Committees of all Scotland wanted that scheme. Why cannot that scheme be revived now that these new powers are being obtained?

Mr. JOHNSTON
Hear, hear!

Sir A. SINCLAIR
I am glad to have the approval of the hon. Gentleman in that suggestion. I think he represents the constituency in which Flanders Moss is situated and I am sure he will be anxious to revive the scheme just as we are anxious to revive it. I am sure that both he and the Secretary of State desire to advance on those lines. We are anxious to help them and to keep before us the greater use which can be made of what we believe to be a thoroughly good Bill. Here is an opportunity to develop our land, to employ our people productively, and to tackle one of the great problems of national reconstruction. We have a right to expect and public opinion impatiently awaits some indication of what the Government intend to do. Here is the Bill. We shall pass it to-night; we welcome it; but I would ask what use is going to be made of it; what are you going to do?

Major MCKENZIE WOOD
There is no difference of opinion about this Bill or the purpose of this Bill, but I should like to deal with a question or two which, in my opinion, are of more than mere committee importance. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the question of appeals, and I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland seriously to consider the point which he  made. As a matter of fact, the drafting of this Bill has resulted in this—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it—that the control of all these schemes is vested in the House of Lords. When a scheme has been formulated and the cost worked out, it comes to this House and to the other House. We know here that no opportunity will ever be given to us to get the time to consider any such scheme, but in another place it is different. They have the time there, and it will be very easy for them to render null and void all the work that has been done, either because they do not like the apportionment of the cost or because they do not like the scheme itself. That is a matter of very great importance, and I hope it will be considered before the Committee stage is reached. The next point to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the difference that is to be found between the wording of Clause 1 and that of Clause 2. Clause 1 refers to the maintenance, if I may put it so, of schemes already in operation, and Clause 2 refers to new schemes; but whereas Clause 1 only deals with agricultural land, in Clause 2 it is not merely agricultural land, but "any land or building in a landward area." The question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Under-Secretary of State, if he is going to reply, is, Why is there this difference between the two Clauses? This question of drainage is a matter which affects not merely agricultural land, but other land as well. The Lord Advocate, in his masterly speech at the beginning of the Debate, referred especially to the Spey. He dealt with the agricultural land in the higher reaches of the Spey, and also with the town land, if I may put it so, at the mouth of the Spey. During these last Christmas holidays many of the people of Garmouth and Kingston Port have been up all night, watching the water rising and fearing that they were going to be washed away. Is their case not to be considered in connection with Clause 1? Supposing they were affected by the fact that a scheme previously in operation has not been carried out, if the people of Garmouth or Kingston-on-Spey can show that their difficulties are largely caused by the fact that somebody  further up the river is not doing his duty, are they to have no redress under this Clause? It seems to me that that is a matter that requires a little further explanation. I might also say that, in regard to Clause 2, the phrase "any land or building in a landward area" is a little obscure, because I do not know what is meant by "a landward area." The last point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the incidence of the capital cost in respect of schemes under Clause 2. There is no question about the incidence of the cost of maintenance. All maintenance is to fall upon the owners and occupiers of the land in question, but with the capital cost it is different. A certain proportion of that cost is to fall upon the State, and the rest apparently on the owners and occupiers. My point is that there is nothing in this Bill to say what proportion is to fall on the State and what proportion on the others involved. There are some directions to guide the arbiters in apportioning the cost as between the different occupiers and owners concerned, but there is nothing at all to say how much is to be borne by the owners and occupiers as a class and how much by the Government, and it seems to me that there should be something in the Bill to give light on these points.

Major COLVILLE
I have only one point to raise in regard to this Bill, which vests in the Department of Agriculture for all time responsibility for the maintenance of these drainage works, I think, under Clause 2, and they can have the sums required for this purpose levied as a rate. The result is that a non-elected body is levying rates, and though the amount may be small, the principle is a great one. In the Coast Erosion Bill there is a similar proposal, which was criticised from this side. It is undesirable and unconstitutional that a non-elected body should have the power of levying these rates, and I suggest that where the schemes have been approved and carried out, their maintenance should be handed over to the county council, and that if the area covered by a scheme, as it well might do, covers more than one county, it might be entrusted to a drainage committee nominated by the county councils affected. I should like the right  hon. Gentleman to take that proposal into his careful consideration. Before sitting down, I should like to say that I welcome this first definite proposal on the part of the Government to assist Scottish agriculture, and I trust that it will be followed by other proposals, because, important as is the question of land drainage, I think that even more important and pressing is the question of keeping good land from going out of cultivation, as it is doing at the present time. I trust the Government will speedily put forward proposals for dealing with that problem as well.

Mr. MacROBERT
I should like to congratulate my successor in office upon his very clear and lucid statement in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is clear from the speeches that have been made that the aim and object of the Bill are being supported on all sides of the House. No doubt it will be scrutinised carefully at a later stage, but at the present time I should like to draw attention to one or two points. First of all, in regard to Clause 1, there is no provision at all, as I understand, for any money payment being made by the Government. Under Clause 1 it is open to any occupier or owner to require any other owner to do something on his estate. It does not require to be an adjacent or adjoining owner. If an owner or occupier can say that his particular property is being injured or is likely to be injured, he can go against the owner who, he alleges, is injuring or is going to injure him. That is what I understand the first Clause says, and I do not take any exception to it, because I understand that it is quite clearly intended to impose a new obligation upon an owner of land, and, because you are going to impose a new obligation, it is all the more essential that you should act fairly and reasonably towards the person upon whom you are imposing it. I think that there must be some mistake in the wording of this particular Sub-section. I refer to the words, in line 11: "in or adjoining such last-mentioned land." According to the Clause as it is drawn, an owner is liable to execute work on an adjoining water-course which does not belong to him. That is quite clear from the words of the Bill, and I am certain  that that is not intended. I. think that what was really intended was that—

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
In the event of one of these water-courses being next to the boundary, would it apply over the boundary as well?

Mr. MacROBERT
Accordingly, I do not think the Government intend that an owner should be responsible to doing any work in respect of a watercourse which is not on his property. I think that what was really intended was not to have the words "or adjoining," but some such words as "any watercourse in or partly in his land," because a watercourse is either within the property or without the property. It may be partly within and partly without, but this Clause deals with a case where the watercourse is adjoining, and that, of course, implies that it is outside the property of the proprietor who is going to be called upon to do the work. I am certain that that is not intended. 10.0 p.m. I do not think that the provisions with regard to appeal are satisfactory. Speaking generally the Sheriff should have power to say that the cost of the work which you seek to impose upon a particular owner is unreasonable in the circumstances, and he should be empowered to say, "I will not impose the duty upon him." The result would be that this particular matter might fall under Clause 2, and form part of a scheme. In that way, Government assistance could be given, but the Sheriff might reasonably be given powers, in the case of a small owner who, because it is alleged that he is injuring an owner in the vicinity, is to be called upon to spend a large sum of money to refuse to grant the order if the cost is going to be prohibitive or unreasonable. That would be a reasonable provision, and it would always be open to the particular person whose application had been refused, to move with a view to coming under Clause 2. It is true that Clause 2; is limited to five years, but if it be a good thing, it will be continued at the end of that time. There is another point with regard to anneals. In an appeal, the sheriff has no option if he is satisfied that injury is being done, but to grant the warrant to an outsider to do the work upon the other man's land. The sheriff  should have power to allow the owner himself to do the work, and to give him an opportunity of doing it. Further than that, the sheriff should have the opportunity of saying, "Although this owner has not executed the work within the month under Clause 1, Sub-section (2), the particular work which he was called upon, to do was of some difficulty, and he had to take more time than the month to consider his plans." If the sheriff thought that the owner was taking all reasonable steps to carry out the work in question, no warrant should be granted. These are some points which I hope will be considered, and can be considered at a later stage. Clause 2, again, as it is drawn, seems to a large extent limited. The Clause reads that, where the Department "are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, or that any land or building in a landward area is being or is in danger of being injured by flooding and that such injury can be remedied or prevented by the execution of drainage works, the Department may, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made under this section, enter on the land." The Clause is limited in this respect, that you have to find an area which is a flooded area, or an agricultural area, which is capable of improvement, and it is only within that area that you can carry out drainage works. It is quite clear that you might have to carry out the drainage work very far away, say higher up the river, and therefore it seems to me that it would be wrong to limit it in the way that is suggested. Do the Government mean by "any land or building in a landward area" that it shall not be limited to agriculture? I understand that they intend it to go beyond agricultural land. I am not taking any exception to that, but I would like to point out that you may be doing something that is not fair if you limit it to the landward area, because one can conceive a case where there may be a few houses outside a burgh and in the landward area which are being flooded; and, when a scheme is made for that part of the landward area, all the owners of that part are responsible and liable to pay a proportion of the expense, whereas the benefit is being received, it may be, by the whole of the burgh and all the owners  in the burgh. In a case like that, it would be wrong to limit responsibility in the way suggested in this Bill. The case has been mentioned of Kingston-on-Spey. That is not a burgh, but a small village, and therefore it might properly be called landward. Supposing Kingston had been a burgh, and there had been certain properties affected by the flooding just outside the burgh. It would be very hard that these owners should have to bear the whole cost, and that would be the case if Kingston had been a burgh. One might easily have a case of a burgh being damnified by flooding, and no scheme would be applicable to it at all. But if you found a few houses outside also flooded, in that case you could have a scheme, and the cost would be thrown on the owners of the landward area. In that respect I think the Bill requires consideration. Then I wish to ask what is the intention of the Bill with regard to mines. Hon. Members opposite seem surprised that I should refer to mines, but if they will look at the wording of this Clause they will see the phrase, "Any land or building in a landward area is being or is in danger of being injured by flood." It is quite common knowledge that mines are in the landward areas, and it is known that many mines are flooded to-day. Does this Bill intend to deal with them? [An HON. MEMBER: "In so far as mines are agricultural."] The hon. Member has not appreciated the very point of this Clause. The Clause is not confined to agricultural land. That is why I am making these remarks. If the Clause had been confined to agricultural land many of my observations would rot have been apposite. It is only because it has been extended to go beyond agricultural land and buildings that these difficult questions are arising. One must remember, too, that, although we are talking of drainage, when we look at the definition we find that we are not really legislating for drains only hut for all the rivers of Scotland. It was said there are no public bodies in charge of any of the drainage schemes, and that is quite true; but it is not true of the rivers. There are the Clyde Trustees and the Forth Conservancy Board; and there may be other authorities  which I do not happen to know. One is apt to forget that owing to the wide-ness of the definition Clause this is a very far-reaching Bill indeed. Some questions arose with regard to cost. I understand it is the purpose of the Bill that a certain proportion of the cost will be thrown upon the owners. It may be that it is the intention of the Government that they should pay only so far as they will be benefited. That may be the policy at the back of the mind of the Government—I do not know if it is—but if it is, it is not quite provided for in the Bill, because I see the Department are only to have regard to certain matters of benefit and the like. That is a point which needs to be carefully looked into. It is quite true, as some other speakers have stated, that there is no appeal at all from the Department with regard to the very important question of settling the schemes, and as far as I can see there is no appeal from the Department with regard to the settling of the cost of the scheme. The only appeal is this: when the Department seek to apportion the cost amongst owners, there may then be an appeal in that case, and in that case only. [Interruption.] I mean an appeal to the arbitrator. It would be arbitration under Clause 2. The method of appeal there, if a person is dissatisfied, is to ask for arbitration, and the arbiter could decide that the Department were wrong in the apportionment they made. If it were left to the Department to say without appeal what the scheme is to be and what the cost of it is to be, that might be a very serious matter for the people concerned, and I think it would be right to give some form of appeal. It has been mentioned that the Department is an interested party. As we all know, the Department is one of the largest landowners in Scotland, and it is rather repugnant, to me, at least, to think that it is to be the judges of so many things while it may be an interested party. But these, as I have said, are matters which can be considered at a later stage. In conclusion I have to say that while there are many points which will require careful consideration and on which we shall require to see that the rights of owners are protected, so far as that can reasonably and fairly be done, nevertheless the main purpose of the Bill is one to commend  itself to this side of the House and we have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. JOHNSTON
My first duty is to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, the very sympathetic reception which this Bill has had from all quarters of the House. Many points have been raised to-night to which I am certain my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give very sympathetic consideration when the Bill gets into Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman and the late Secretary of State for Scotland raised, for example, the point as to whether or not it might be advisable for the sheriff to have an assessor or assessors with him under Clause 1. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider that question in all its aspects when we get upstairs. The question was also raised as to whether outside engineers might be brought in in exceptional cases. That, again, will be sympathetically considered; at least, powers may be taken to bring in outside engineers if the Secretary of State for Scotland for the time being should consider that course to be necessary. Then the point was raised by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) and by other hon. Members as to the small man under Clause 1 and whether he could be transferred to Clause 2 on good cause being shown. I think so; at any rate that was our intention. It was clearly the intention of the Government that such a course should be followed where it could be shown that the lack of drainage or the lack of proper precautions against flooding by one man was materially injuring agriculture in his neighbourhood. That, I think, would be a case where Clause 2 would be brought in. These and similar points, I can assure the House, will be very reasonably met if we can at all meet them when we come to the Committee stage; but we are exceedingly anxious that the main structure of the Bill should get through. We are prepared to meet hon. Gentlemen on details if we can get the main structure. What is this main structure? We do not know how many acres are flooded in Scotland. In England they had a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has said that in 1927 there were 1,750,000 acres in danger of flooding and in immediate need of drain  age.There are 1,250,000 acres suffering regularly from flooding. At the present moment in Scotland, there are great stretches of land requiring to be dealt with. The Chamber of Agriculture and other organisations which claim to speak on behalf of agriculture in Scotland have demanded that something should be done and done speedily in regard to land drainage in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already secured £30,000 a year for field drainage, and that is three times more than the amount of money which was spent last year. I am perfectly certain that if it is found that that sum is not enough, we shall do our best to secure a larger sum. Anyhow we have already taken steps to multiply by three the amount of money that was voted for field drainage last year. Now comes the question of the arterial drainage required in Scotland. We do not want to be choked off with any small proposals. We must have something like a great and comprehensive scheme to tackle and deal with this subject. There are quite 10 or 12 schemes which ought to be carried out. There is the scheme dealing with the Spey where the railway bank is in danger, and agricultural land is actually being washed away. The great flood of 1928 caused one-and-a-half acres of arable land to disappear; market gardens were washed away, and dwelling houses were undermined. It is no good coming forward suggesting that we should deal with these matters with our present powers, and we must provide some central authority to deal with them. I do not want to introduce political considerations into this question, but we had a local conference on the subject of flooding on the Spey and our engineers produced a scheme to deal with it. The railway companies agreed to the scheme and offered to pay a contribution towards the cost, but the landowner refused.

Mr. MACPHERSON
What part of the Spey was that?

Mr. JOHNSTON
I am referring to the scheme produced to stop the washing away of houses and the threatening of the railway line at Garmouth. What we propose to do now is to produce our scheme and give objec  tors power to object. When their objections are heard, it will then be formally intimated to all the proprietors that the scheme will provide for the expenses—not necessarily only a part, but it may be all the expenses—being borne by those who are to get the actual benefit, including those who are saved from suffering depreciation of their properties, and who may rightly be called upon for a contribution towards the cost of the scheme. I need not repeat what the Lord Advocate has said, but it is provided in the Bill that, if objection is taken, an arbiter shall be appointed by a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session, absolutely free from any suspicion of Government influence, to settle the amount of compensation if compensation be necessary. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) drew attention to the fact that, as the Bill now stands, a hostile Resolution in either House would kill any one scheme. I agree. We desire to get our Bill through, and, accordingly, have put in these safeguards, but we are so absolutely certain that we can make out a 100 per cent. good case that we are willing, in the interests of the agriculture of our country, to take that risk. We feared that, if we did not put in these safeguards, however extravagant they may seem to us and to hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House, we should not be able to secure that measure of support and agreement in this House which would be necessary for the carrying out of our purpose. If in Committee there is anything like a majority for lessening these safeguards, I am sure that no Member on this side of the House would regret it if some of them, which we believe to be absolutely unnecessary were taken out. I think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was mistaken in saying that there is not much in Clause 2 of the Bill, and that, on further consideration, he will amend that opinion. Thirty-three branches of the Farmers' Union—the people who know the facts—have formally sent us appeals to get on with this Bill as speedily as possible; and all the agricultural interests in Scotland so far as we know—the Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Farm Servants' Union, the surveyors, everyone—believe that the Bill,  even as it now stands, may mean the salvation of agricultural land in Scotland. Reference has been made to the Spey, and also to the Kelvin. I have lived by the banks of the Kelvin all my life. I see 3,000 acres, eight times in an average winter, under flood, sometimes three feet deep. I have seen roads washed away. I believe it has cost the Treasury more money for the repair of roads in that area than would have bought the whole of the land outright. Cattle have been washed away. Recently a woman disappeared, and her body was not found until some weeks afterwards, having actually passed through a town. We know that this flooding could be stopped. We have detailed reports of skilled engineers, and we have estimates of what it would cost to do it. We believe that we can, in that one valley alone, bring 3,000 acres of the finest land in central Scotland into immediate use. We believe that we can do that profitably and economically. As in the case of the Spey and the Kelvin, the Annan also persistently floods arable land. I am informed that at present the sour, marshy, flooded areas by the River Annan are let at 30s. and 40s. per annum, while land adjacent but just outside the flooded area lets at £6 and over. It is obvious that, if we could only take what steps are in our power to bring this land into use, as other countries have done, we could make it profitable and do something to put agriculture on a more economic footing. We hear a lot about rationalisation of this industry and the other industry. If the statements made by the agricultural interest in Scotland are correct, one-seventh of the capital resources of agriculture is urgently requiring treatment by drainage. Here is a method by which, for a trifling sum of public money, we shall be able to do something for our greatest industry. We shall be able to make those who receive the benefit pay a large proportion of the cost. We shall be able to make those who are seeing their property depreciate pay something to have the cessation of that depreciation, and, if we cannot carry the public ownership of the land which we should desire, and other Members who desire individual ownership, and believe that everyone has a  right to do what he likes with his own, cannot justify this flooded anarchy any longer, surely we can sit on the Standing Committee upstairs, and, without party politics, discuss amicably and reasonably the many useful points which have been raised in the discussion to-day. I can assure the House that, if the Bill is met upstairs in the same spirit as it has been met in the House to-night, we shall do our beet to meet all reasonable points of difference. Let us trust that we shall get the Bill through as speedily as possible, so that the engineers' schemes which are already in draft can be put into use at once, and we shall see something done this summer to better agricultural possibilities.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I should not have taken any part in the Debate but for the-perfectly amazing speech which we have just heard. The hon. Gentleman has told us that there is flooded anarchy, whatever that means, in the agricultural districts of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Water!"] I should rather imagine that floods and water are usually more or less closely connected. Here is a scheme brought forward and supported by practically every Scottish Member. I propose, as an English Member, as time goes on, to look into the cost of the Bill and certain other details connected with it. When I find Scottish Members fairly steadily combining to extract money, when I find over a considerable period that these same gentlemen want to get quietly on with it, I think, as a representative of the general taxpayer, I have some right, on these rare occasions when one has an opportunity of raising one's voice, to put in a word for the general taxpayer. I should like to call the attention of the House to the Memorandum. It is a most extraordinary Memorandum. I do not wonder that there is no representative of the Treasury here. No representative of the Treasury, unless he was more decadent than the present representatives on the Front Bench, could possibly come and answer for such a Bill as this. The Memorandum says that "the whole cost of execution of the schemes in view may be in the neighbourhood of £100,000." It says "may be." There is nothing definite. It may be £100,000 or it may be £1,000,000, for all we know. All we know  is, that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland believe that they have a limitless sum upon which they can draw. Are we entitled to pass any Bill at the present time which gives them a limitless sum? I would not mind the granting of a given sum, provided I knew the precise amount. It is absolutely wrong to go forward with a Bill of this kind unless we have an understanding as to what the actual sum is likely to be. The Memorandum goes on to say: "It is thought that 6ome 50 per cent. of the cost of all the schemes, excluding compensation, may ultimately be recovered." It is a queer and vague Memorandum. "It is thought"—on two occasions those words recur. We have had no estimate of what the total sum is likely to be. The House of Commons, which is supposed primarily to be a financial House, has not the remotest knowledge of the actual cost from what I have heard of the discussion this afternoon, and I have heard a very considerable portion of it. I, like others, have to leave the Chamber—we are all human—about eight o'clock for a short time, but I am no worse than any other hon. Member. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman undoubtedly speaks from his own desires and feelings, but there are some who have other ideas in life beyond that. I am sorry for the interruption, because it is a bit difficult to go into a Bill which is so complicated. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State referred to the question of floods on the Spey. I understand that great damage is being done. [Interruption.] I am perfectly innocent in regard to this matter, and, surely, that is all the more reason why I should try to find out about this matter. The hon. Member says that enormous damage has been done and that the railway company are liable and willing to help. I did not notice that any other person was liable and willing to help. I conclude that the railway company are a business concern, and probably have Englishmen on the management. What about the local people from the various local authorities? No offer of any kind, as far as I can make out, has been made by local authorities to put the matter right. I always understood that if there was  money in it, the Scotsman was the first to be there.

Mr. JOHNSTON
May I assist the hon. Gentleman's peroration by saying that the County Council was willing to pay, and actually invited a conference?

Mr. WILLIAMS
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having helped me out on this occasion. We have an assurance with respect to the county council and the railway company. That is all to the good. But we have no knowledge that the people who make profit out of the land are going to help in any way. I should like to be certain that value will be obtained for the money spent and that in some instances we are not paying perhaps one pound in order to recover one shillingsworth of land. If the land was as valuable as we are led to believe, one would have thought that not only the railway company and the local authorities but others would have been willing to move in the matter. There may be a considerable number of big owners and tenants interested. If it could have been shown to me that the work was worth doing in every case, I should have been only too glad to give support, but it did not appear to me that the case had been proved. I cannot understand Clause 1, but I hope that the result of my intervention so far as that Clause is concerned will not be that I shall be punished by being placed upon the Scottish Committee. It is one of the most complicated bits of legislation that I have ever had the pleasure or otherwise of looking into. When my hon. and learned Friend was trying to explain what would happen under Clause 1, line 10: "or to join in maintaining the banks or to cleanse the channel of any watercourse in or adjoining such last-mentioned land," I interrupted him, not from mere opposition, but to ask whether it was possible to say what would happen with regard to a stream which was on the border of the two countries. I wanted to give an opportunity to the Government to explain whether this Measure stands alone or whether it is the forerunner of an English scheme. I deliberately asked the question, and I have been given to understand from different sources that this Bill is a sort of preparatory scheme to an English land drainage scheme. If that is the case,  if we can be assured that all the various details of this Bill are likely to be repeated as far as England is concerned, if we can be certain that the unlimited expenditure of money which is likely to occur under this Bill is likely to occur on a wider area when England will benefit as well, I should not be quite so averse to the Bill, but when I find that there is no direct encouragement to us to believe that it will be extended on a wider scale, when I find that this grant of public money is a grant to Scotland and will not come to England, then every English Member, regardless of party, should join with me in saying that we should have such a Measure in England as well. I do not say that I should approve even in that case, but there would be a better chance of getting my approval if the provisions of a Measure such as this were extended to this side of the Border. I want to raise a point on Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. I do not profess to have a comprehensive knowledge of Scottish legal terms. [Interruption.] I am sure hon. Members will agree that I am therefore entitled to get some knowledge on these matters. I want to know what the words in this Sub-section actually mean: "Where a notice has been served in pursuance of the foregoing sub-section and the requirements thereof have not been complied with within one month after such date of service, it shall be lawful for the person serving the notice to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising Him to cause the operations specified in the notice to be carried out or to join with any other person in so doing." It seems to me that this is authorising a tremendous interference, a collosal interference, with the rights of individuals in almost any circumstances. You may have a small man occupying a comparatively little homestead who, by some misfortune which he is entirely unable to control, is causing the blocking of a particular river. Down comes upon him this notice from the Sheriff and ultimately the whole cost of the operation, as I read the Bill, may sooner or later be put on his shoulders. I say quite honestly that in such a matter as this— [Interruption]—I am glad to find there is one hon. Member who cheers the word "honestly," because it is not so popular with the party opposite at the moment. I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a man who has had a very hard struggle in life in many ways,  who has been successful, can he really say that, so far as this Subsection is concerned he considers that the small man has adequate protection? I do not; I very much doubt it. It is very nice for the right hon. Gentleman's lawyer friends to say that it is all right, but the right hon. Gentleman is a man who has kindliness at the bottom of his heart, and I say frankly that if I were in his position and had to force through such a thing as this, I would not be at all sure that I would not want very much bigger powers for safeguarding the small individual with his hard lot and small margin of profit.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Land Drainage (Scotland) Money

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
 "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses to be incurred by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the said Act so far as those expenses are not recovered in the manner provided by the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. William Adamson.]

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson)
After the large amount of information which has been given by the learned Lord Advocate and by others who have taken part in the Debate on the Bill, a very few words of explanation of the Money Resolution will suffice. The Bill has received the unanimous approval of the House and has been spoken of favourably by Scottish members in all quarters. I,  therefore, think that the money necessary to carry out the purpose of the Bill should be granted without further discussion. The sum needed is £100,000. With this money we shall be able to carry out not only the ten principal schemes already referred to, which would have been explained in detail if time had permitted, but a number of subsidiary schemes as well. I hope that the Committee without further explanation will see their way to agree to the Resolution.

Major WOOD
I want to ask one question. Are we to understand that these schemes contemplated by Clause 2 are always to be contributed to out of public funds? Supposing there is a case where it is quite obvious that the advantage to the owners concerned is as much as, or more than, the cost of the scheme, will the whole of the cost be made payable by the different owners? In some cases these schemes will not entail any expense at all on the Exchequer.

Mr. ADAMSON
It very much depends upon the circumstances.

Mr. MACPHERSON
My hon. Friend wants to know if a scheme comes forward in which the advantage is entirely to the proprietor, will no public money be expended?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I wish to make a protest that no representative of the Treasury is here when we are dealing with a Money Resolution. I also want to support the point which was made by an hon. Member on Second Reading, namely, that when you have Scottish Members in all parts joining together, then it is time for English Members to look out and to see that the English taxpayer is not done down by the Scottish. It is said that the cost will be £100,000 but there is nothing in the Resolution about £100,000. The Financial Memorandum says it is thought that the whole cost of the execution of the scheme may be in the neighbourhood of £100,000, but we do not know whether we are letting ourselves in for £100,000 or £1,000,000. There may be new schemes which are not mentioned here. The Financial Memorandum then says: "It is thought that some 50 per cent. of the cost of all the schemes, excluding compensation, may ultimately be recovered." We do not know that 50 per cent. will be recovered. Then it says: "The Department have no reason to suppose that claims will be unduly heavy." What does "unduly heavy" mean? The Committee cannot pass a Resolution of this sort without a great deal more information as to what we are letting ourselves in for.

Captain CROOKSHANK
We are dealing here with a Money Resolution which is the way in which the House provides the finance, and the Resolution says that it is a question of making further provision for the drainage of agricultural land. I take it that means something in the nature of capital charges. Although the Bill is based on the Money Resolution, the only part of the Bill which is in italics is in Clause 4, which says: "The expenses of the Department under this Act so far as not recovered in manner provided by this Act shall, to such an amount as the Treasury may sanction, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament." Therefore I take it this is really the only part of the Bill with which Parliament is concerned in finding the money. I gather that the Under-Secretary assents. But then I turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (12), and I find something quite different. It says that the cost incurred by the Department in maintaining drainage works executed in accordance with the various schemes shall be levied on and recovered from the owner by the rating authority and paid over by the rating authority to the Department. I take it that Clause 4 means that if, for one reason or another, the rate is not levied, the Treasury has to make good the difference.

Mr. JOHNSTON
We are taking power to levy the rate.

Captain CROOKSHANK
I quite see that the Government are taking power to levy the rate, but they cannot levy the rate if, for one reason or another, there is default, which is, I imagine, quite possible, particularly in Scotland. In Clause 4 power is taken by the Department to recover that amount from moneys which Parliament puts at its disposal. That is purely a question of maintenance, yet the Under-Secretary, when I put my first point, indicated that it was merely a question of capital works. Which is it? Surely it is perfectly simple to say whether the Government Department is  to find contributions in aid of some kind of capital works, or whether we are finding an amount of money for the maintenance of works constructed under this Bill. Having to make good any default may involve a recurring charge and no reason has been given so far for limiting it to £100,000. It is a question of whether we are dealing with capital expenditure or with possible maintenance grants from year to year, and that is a matter of concern to every Member, whether he sits for a Scottish constituency or not, because we are all jointly responsible for the finances of the country. I hope that the Secretary of State, instead of looking at the clock, will reply to this point.

Mr. W. ADAMSON
I would point out that there is very little time now at my disposal. We are putting forward this Money Resolution for the purpose of enabling us to go forward with this Measure, and, in the Money Resolution, the cost is estimated at £100,000. Had time been available I could have given the amounts set aside for each scheme, but the estimate of the total, as I say, is £100,000, and before the Treasury finally part with the matter it will be provided for in the Scottish Estimates. This Money Resolution is necessary to enable us to get the other stages of the Bill, and, having explained that to my fellow Members from England, and having pointed out that there is a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill, I appeal to them to restrain themselves and allow us to get the Resolution.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I should be the last to—

Mr. SEXTON
On a point of order. What have we done to deserve this?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS
These interruptions make it difficult for me to get on with the job. What I wish to know about this Resolution, of which we have had no explanation, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—

Mr. W. ADAMSON
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Government Departments (Ex-Service Men)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. W. J. BROWN
I wish to raise the matter about which I gave notice at Question time to-day. I refer to the discharge of ex-service men now serving as temporary civil servants in Government Departments. I do not deny that successive Governments have done a good deal to ease the problem of temporary labour in the Civil Service; I do not deny that in the early stages of the post-War period dismissals from the Civil Service on a large scale were inevitable; but for some time past the size of the temporary clerk problem in the Civil Service has been so small as to make it a perfectly practicable thing to give security to the remaining temporary staff. Successive Governments have pledged themselves in the plainest possible language that no efficient ex-service temporary clerk should be discharged from the Civil Service to make room for incoming recruits from school. That pledge was made by the last Government. It has been endorsed by the present Government, but I shall submit to the House that, if that pledge is being carried out in the letter, it is being violated in the spirit in a way in which this House ought not to tolerate. It may be true that an individual ex-service man is not being put on the street in order that a boy or girl from school may come in to occupy his particular seat; but What is happening in the Civil Service is that temporary men are being discharged, that established civil servants already in the Department are being transferred to the seats that these men leave, and that then open competition recruits are being brought in to fill the place of the civil servants thus transferred. The evidence for what I have said may be found in the fact that during the last four years no less than 2,354 boys and girls have been brought through open competitive examinations into the Civil Service. During the same period, dismissals of temporary ex-service men who ought never to be called temporary after from 10 to 15 years' service for the State, have been proceeding at an average rate of 450 per annum. My hon. Friend who will reply will probably tell the House that a considerable proportion of the ex-service men dismissed year by year have subsequently been found places in other Departments through the operations of the Joint Substitution Board. I am not concerned whether that is the case or not. If only one ex-service man finds himself on the streets after 10 or 16 years' work for the State, in order that a boy or girl may come in from school, my case remains just as good as if the number ran into scores or hundreds or thousands. That ought not to happen, but, if my hon. Friend says that he has been able to replace the bulk of those being discharged, what does that mean? It means that what I say is true. If over a period four years, during which you have had to dismiss a number of men, you have found it possible to replace them in other Departments, surely the logical deduction is that it is perfectly practicable at this stage of the problem to assure every efficient ex-service temporary clerk that he can have security of tenure somewhere or other in the Civil Service. I ask the House to conceive the attitude of mind of men of anything from 30 to 50 years of age, in most cases with families, and with anything from 10 to 15 years' service in a temporary capacity, being presented, as a hundred men at Kew are now being presented, with a notice that in one month from now their services will not be required in that Department. That is a situation in which we ought not to place any of those men if it is possible, as I tell the House it is possible, to give them security of tenure. The next point I wish to make is this. The Government have set up a Royal Commission on the Civil Service. It is part of its terms of reference to consider the future of these very men of whom  I am talking. I say it is a monstrous thing, while that Commission is considering the future of these men, that their future should be destroyed by dismissals. The essence of the appointment of a Commission of that kind, if the Government are sincere, is that while it is sitting and until it presents its report the men into whose fate it is inquiring ought to be assured of security of tenure, and nothing ought to be done to sabotage the work of the Commission before it has had the opportunity of considering the problem and reporting. The next point is this; even where the Government are able, when men are dismissed from one Department, to send them to another, that often imposes a very severe tax upon the individuals concerned. They are poor men. The maximum salary of a Grade III Clerk, as most of them are, is 67s. 7d. a week. None of those men can yet have reached the maximum, and the average rate would be about 62s. If a man is moved from Kew, where he has been for a large number of years, and where he has made his home, and is sent to the Custom House in the East End of London, or to the Money Order Department in North London, or some other department in the City of London, the net effect is to tax him to the tune of several shillings a week for travelling expenses as the result of the move. I beg the Minister, if he is compelled to effect those transfers, to do to these men what be would do with established civil servants, and make good to them the extra cost of travel. I think it is inhuman that the Government should mulct those individuals who have given military service, and after that long periods of Civil Service, of several shillings a week from a paltry wage of 62s. or thereabouts, on which they have to keep a wife and family. I shall probably be told by the hon. Gentleman who is to reply that there is need for a measure of open competitive recruitment to the clerical and writing assistants' classes of the Civil Service. I am not going to deny the desirability of a measure of open recruitment from the point of view of this State service, but if one half of these 2,300 seats which have been filled by boys and girls from school had been utilised to give permanency to men who are now insecure we should not have needed to put questions to-day about  dismissals from Kew or to raise this matter to-night. It is not a matter of ignoring the needs of the State's service, but of relating the State's service to the State's own responsibility towards an exceedingly deserving body of men. At some other time I shall need to raise in the House the effect of the recruitment of boys and girls from school to the executive class of the Civil Service and the clerical class of the Civil Service, with promotion prospects to writing assistants, typists, P men, and so on. I am not raising that issue to-night. To-night I am raising these two specific points. I, as an old civil servant, tell the House that it is a perfectly practical thing for the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to say in this House to-night that every temporary clerk who is efficient shall be assured of security of tenure, and he can do that and "till meet his needs in the way of open competitive recruitment. That is a perfectly practicable thing to do; and I ask him to do it. The second thing I ask him to do is to deal with that point about extra travelling expenses where transfers are involved. My last word, for I want to leave the hon. Member plenty of time to reply, is, we do not want to find him acting as the mouthpiece of Treasury officials on this issue. Nothing has discouraged me more as a newcomer to these benches—and I am going to put this with the utmost possible candour—than to witness the way in which our Ministers make themselves the mouthpiece of replies that any civil servant could tell them were wrong replies. We want something better than that from Labour Ministers. We passionately want something better than that when the employment of married men with families is at stake. We are entitled to ask for it, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give it to us.

Commander SOUTHBY
I want to associate myself with all that has been said by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), and I am sure every temporary Civil Service clerk will be grateful to him for the way in which he has put forward their case. After the War these men went into the Civil Service, and they were assured of jobs in the Civil Service as long as they were able to carry out their duties  efficiently. Although it may be argued that this contract has been honoured in the letter, it cannot be argued that it is being honoured in the spirit. We may be told that it has been necessary in the interests of economy to replace these men by boys and girls, but this House, I am sure, would not wish to see economy practised to the detriment of men who fought in the War and who were assured of jobs when they returned, as long as they were competent to carry out their duties.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)
As hon. Members who have been in the House for some years are aware, we have always been exceedingly careful to do justice in this matter. The House has to take care of the efficiency of the Civil Service, but so careful have we been in the past that even the efficiency of the Civil Service has not been allowed to stand in the way of justice being done to the ex-service men, and we have frequently appointed committees in order to make sure that everything possible was being done to protect the interests of the ex-sevice men. Let me say what has taken place. In the first place, apart from the ex-service men who were pre-War in the Civil Service, established in the ordinary way, the following steps have been taken to protect the interests of the ex-service men. Acting upon the recommendations of the Lytton and Southborough Committees there was an examination and the result of it was that 16,000 ex-service men have been established as civil servants. There was a number of men who did not qualify, and as a result it was felt that there was still a large number of ex-service men who might become dispossessed of their employment. Those who did not pass the examination were examined and their case was brought under review. Acting upon the principle that those who had the highest claim upon the State should be given preference, a further 8,000 were put into a P class, and those men would be quite certain to retain their jobs although they were not exactly established and did not become pensionable as the ordinary established men were. That means something like 5,000 ex-service men were left as temporary civil  servants. Those 5,000 men are subject to two promises. The first is that for every three vacancies that occur in the P Class through promotion, discharge, death or any other reason, one of the remaining ex-service men who are not established shall be given a P Class position. The second promise is one which was given by my predecessor in office and which I have confirmed, namely, that pending the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the appointment of new entrants to the clerical class of the Civil Service by open competition will not be allowed to result in discharge from the Government service of any efficient ex-service temporary clerk in order to make room for a successful candidate from such examination. At the same time I think it must be clear to hon. Members, who are accustomed to deal with ordinary affairs, that it would not be possible to go beyond that, and promise that there would be no recruitment from outside the Civil Service. I do not think that my hon. Friend who raised this question suggested that. I may perhaps be permitted to quote a recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, presented to this House in 1929. They said—

Mr. STEPHEN
A Tory committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I do not know how long the hon. Member has been in this House, but I may inform him that these Committees are not party Committees—

Mr. STEPHEN
I have been long enough in the House to know that they are.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am sorry; I was facing the other way and did not notice that it was my hon. Friend who made the interjection. The Select Committee's recommendation was as follows: "Whilst your Committee agree that in the circumstances existing after the War the arrangements made were appropriate, they consider, in the interests of future efficiency and in view of the urgency of correcting the existing distribution without delay, that steps should be taken as occasion arises to resume the system of open competition, with the intention, on the one hand, of improving the standard of admission to the various  classes and, on the other hand, of maintaining a regular flow of recruits at the normal ages." I think it must be apparent that it would be impossible for the Government, being responsible for the efficiency of the whole Civil Service, to do away with open recruitment so that people at the ages required should be admitted; I at as I have already pointed out, it takes care at the same time to safeguard the position of the ex-service men.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON
Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information as to how many men have been promoted from the "P" class on to the permanent establishment? The "P" class men have no pension rights, and it is an inferred moral obligation that they would be gradually promoted from the "P" class on to the establishment with pension rights.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am told the answer to that is 1,100. course, I cannot give any definite promise that as jobs peter out there will not be some discharge of temporary men.

Mr. BROWN
What becomes of the pledge?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The time is very short. If hon. Members want me to deal with the subject, I must be allowed to proceed, or they will suffer through my answer not being satisfactory.

Mr. BROWN
The hon. Gentleman has occupied nearly two-thirds of his time with a recital of past history, and has not yet come to the specific point of my speech which is: How does he reconcile what is happening with his own pledge?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I must take the subject as a whole. If hon. Members had not interrupted I should have come to the point. I cannot promise that as jobs peter out men will not be discharged, but that is not the pledge. The pledge is that men will not be discharged in order to find room for new entrants through examination. At the, same time, it is the effort of the Joint Substitution Board to find places for men who are discharged, and I assure my hon. Friend that in certainly the great bulk, if not in all cases, jobs have  been offered to the men who have been discharged in either the same or in some other Department on the same lines as those from which they have been discharged. With regard to the men who are subject to discharge at present, I am informed that already the Joint Substitution Board has found places for several of them, and before their notices expire, a very considerable proportion of the men discharged will have had places found for them, and although I must not be taken to give any definite pledge, I am hopeful that a substantial number of those who remain will before a very great while after their discharge has taken place, be replaced in some Department, so that they will not suffer appreciably.

Mr. BROWN
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is, if the Government has given a pledge that no ex-service man shall be turned out to make room for an incoming open competition recruit, that at one and the same time you have boys and girls coming in by the hundred—600 from the last examination alone—and men being discharged? How can he reconcile that with the pledge?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The fact is, that those engaged in Government Departments are not all exactly the  same. Human beings are not like sheep in a field. They all have different work, different grades of work, and different responsibility. It is not possible absolutely to say that every man who is turned out can be put into any job that arises. We have to take all sorts of things into consideration, but broadly speaking every man that has been discharged has been found work at the same time that the new entrants have come in. The pledge has been observed not only in the letter but in the spirit, and it is the intention of the Departments to keep that pledge in the latter and in the spirit in the future.

Mr. BROWN
May I give notice, that in view of that wholly unsatisfactory, lame, inadequate and irrelevant reply, I shall raise this matter on another appropriate occasion if I am in order in so doing.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I am sure the whole House thinks that the hon. Gentleman's answer has been entirely unsatisfactory and nothing but mere quibble all the way through.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.