House of Commons
Monday, July 4, 1921
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Earby Urban District Council Bill [ Lords ],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
South Essex Waterworks Bill [ Lords ],
Read a Second time, and committed.
County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
John Newland Endowment Order Confirmation Bill [ Lords ],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Trade and Commerce
Motor Cars (Spanish Tariff)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Spain has recently placed a very high tariff on English manufactured motor cars; and was this tariff, which is having a serious effect on the English motor export business with Spain, imposed without discussion between the countries concerned?
:The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Discussions took place between representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government before the recent introduction of the provisional Spanish Customs Tariff, and I am now collecting information from exporting interests with a view to further discussions prior to the adoption in Spain of a revised tariff of a more permanent character.
Exports
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the values and quantities of British exports in the first five months of the years 1913 and 1921, respectively?
:The total values and estimated weights of the exports from this country of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, registered during the periods specified, were as follow:
Five months ended May, 1913, £214,223,000 of 37,108,000 tons estimated weight.
Five months ended May, 1921, £330,743,000 of 9,438,000 tons estimated weight.
These totals are inclusive of coal, coke and manufactured fuel of an aggregate weight of 30,781,000 tons (value £21,373,000) in the five months of 1913, and of 6,505,000 tons (value £16,955,000) in the five months of 1921.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the domestic exports of the United Kingdom, in quantities, for the quarter ending March, 1921, as compared with the same quarter of March, 1913?
:The estimated aggregate weight of the exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures registered during the quarter ended 31st March, 1921, was 7,660,000 tons, including 5,811,000 tons of coal, coke and manufactured fuel, and 1,849,000 tons of other articles. During the corresponding period of 1913 the estimated aggregate weight of such exports was 21,655,000 tons, including 18,028,000 tons of coal, coke and manufactured fuel and 3,627,000 tons of other articles.
asked whether the value of the domestic exports of the United Kingdom for the quarter ended March, 1921, shows a decrease of 46·5 per cent. as compared with the corresponding quarter of 1913, when allowance is made for the difference in price values measured by the Board of Trade index number; and what are the similar comparisons in the export trade of the United States, France, and Belgium?
:The comparison of the volume of exports during January-March this year with those of the corresponding months of 1913 is as stated in the question. Similar comparisons for the trade of the foreign countries specified are not available.
:May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, each one of these countries has not got the same method of comparison—a similar method, at all events?
:I am not aware that any figures of the kind have been taken out in other countries. I have not seen them myself.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the publications of the Economic Council?
:Certainly.
Government Staffs and Offices
Food Department, Board of Trade
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of inspectors employed by the Food Department of the Board of Trade who are engaged throughout the country in endeavouring to convict persons for infringing the Regulations of the Prices and Descriptions Order, 1920?
:The number at present employed is 36.
:Is it not time the Food Department of the Board of Trade was abolished?
:It will abolish itself as soon as it can, but these particular inspectors cannot be finally dispensed with until the revocation of all the liquor Orders.
Foreign and Colonial Trade (Information Offices)
asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many towns in the United Kingdom his Department provides offices and staff for the purpose of giving information on foreign and colonial trade to merchants and manufacturers in this country; whether all these offices are conducted on the same lines as the one in the City of London; whether all, or any, of them show samples; and if they are provided with foreign and colonial trade directories?
:The Department does not maintain any offices in the United Kingdom outside London, but members of its home staff, as well as officers of the Commercial Diplomatic and Trade Commissioner Service when in this country, make frequent visits to chambers of commerce and firms at important towns, for the purpose of interviewing traders and answering inquiries. Temporary exhibitions of special collections of samples are also frequently held by the Department in provincial towns.
Exhibitions Department
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons are employed in his Department in the section dealing with the annual British trade exhibitions held in London and elsewhere; what offices they occupy; and what is the estimated cost of this staff during the present year?
:The Exhibitions Division of the Department of Overseas Trade deals with all matters requiring official action in connection with exhibitions at home and abroad, and is responsible for the organisation of the London Branch of the British Industries Fair. The total number of officers employed in the Division, including typing and messenger staff, is 40. Their annual salaries amount, at present rates, to approximately £15,000, inclusive of bonus. Temporary staff for work on the British Industries Fair is also engaged for a few months each year, the cost representing about £6,000 per annum. This latter item is chargeable to the fair, which is organised on a self-supporting basis. The Division occupies offices at 2, Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, and also maintains an exhibition of foreign samples in the City, at 7, Old Bailey.
Foreign Office
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cause of the continuous increases in the staff and expenditure of the Foreign Office, which has risen from a staff of 185 before the War, costing £65,500, to a staff of 705 in 1919–20, costing £172,000, and has been further raised in 1921–22 to a staff of 898, costing £300,500, notwithstanding the fact that a large part of its responsibilities in the Middle East have now been transferred to the Colonial Office; what steps are being taken to secure an immediate reduction of staff and expenditure; and what saving in respect of each will be effected?
:With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the reply:
The increase in staff and the consequent increase in cost are due in a large measure to the fact that innumerable questions arising out of the Peace negotiations and Treaties fall to the Foreign Office to deal with and involve much additional work and correspondence. It is in the years following a war that the greatest burden is thus laid upon the Foreign Office.
The matters forming the subject of diplomatic discussions, often of the most complicated kind, which have to be carried on with the foreign representatives in London and with His Majesty's Embassies and Missions abroad are more extensive and call for more departmental study and work than at any time in our history. I may call attention incidentally to the creation of a number of new independent States under the Treaties of Peace, each of which adds appreciably to the burden of work.
A large proportion of the increase in the staff and the cost, referred to by the hon. Member, is due to the enormous recent increase in the issue of passports. In this Department in 1913 there was a staff of two. In the present year the staff numbers 281. The number of passports dealt with in the three years 1913, 1919, 1920 respectively, was 12,700; 335,727; and 442,909. However, the fees taken during the financial year 1920–21 amounted to £111,611, or considerably more than twice the cost of the staff of the Passport Office.
Deducting the personnel of the Passport Department from the total for the present year of 898, there remains a staff of 617. There are other factors which have made the employment of so large a staff essential. The Peace Treaties, for example, have necessitated the setting up of more than 50 Plebiscite and other Commissions on all of which there are or were British representatives responsible to and receiving their instructions from the Foreign Office. These Commissions include such important bodies as the Upper Silesia Plebiscite Commission, the Rhineland High Commission, and the Administration of the city of Danzig. Again, the total number of papers dealt with by the Foreign Office is nearly three times as large as that dealt with in the year before the war, and it is estimated that there is a fivefold increase in the telegrams exchanged between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's representatives abroad. Further, in order to deal adequately with the increased volume of work, it has been necessary to introduce a new and more effective system of registering and indexing papers, which necessitates a larger Registry staff as well as the larger staff to deal with telegrams.
As regards the Middle East, the Foreign Office had administrative control of Palestine, but only political responsibility for Aden and some other portions of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as partial political responsibility for Mesopotamia. It is the case that these responsibilities have been transferred from, the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, but the transfer does not completely terminate the work of the Foreign Office in connection with those portions of the Middle East, since the Foreign Office remains responsible for diplomatic correspondence and negotiations with foreign Governments on questions of international concern arising in these countries. While a saving of part of the comparatively small staff employed in the Foreign Office in connection with the responsibilities transferred has been effected, the remainder of that staff is fully occupied by the work still falling to the Foreign Office and by the increase of Departmental work in other directions already referred to.
I should add that the sum of more than £88,000 included in the total cost of salaries for the year 1921–22 represents bonus, as against about £59,000 in the year 1920–21. It is anticipated that with the fall in the cost of living a reduction of over £20,000 will be possible under this head next year.
In reply to the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question, no opportunity is being lost or will be lost of effecting a reduction of staff and expenditure, and while it is hoped that it will be possible to effect certain economies in the course of the present year, it is essential to bear in mind that the strength of the Foreign Office staff must always be proportionate to the amount of work to be performed and that this depends on factors entirely beyond the control of the British Government or Parliament. The problems raised by our foreign relations depend on what goes on and what is done in the rest of the world, and so long as confusion and 'strife and generally abnormal conditions prevail in foreign countries, which affect British interests, heavy work is automatically entailed on the Foreign Secretary and his staff, for which provision must be made.
It would be no true economy, even if it were feasible, to effect a saving by placing a greater burden on individual members of the staff of the Foreign Office, very many of whom are already heavily overworked.
Office of Works (Discharges)
asked the hon Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state the reason for the present high rate of discharges from the industrial staffs of the Office of Works in view of the work requiring to be done; whether he is aware of the Government's declared policy to carry out all necessary work in order to obviate discharges in this time of depression; that men are being discharged from the Office of Works, although Parliament has voted the necessary money to keep them in employment; and whether he will reconsider the policy of his Department in this regard?
:In accordance with the general policy of the Government, and the urgent need for economy, my Department is proceeding with none but the most essential services, and the reduction of staff is an inevitable consequence. Special works for the relief of unemployment are being carried out in the Royal Parks, with funds voted by Parliament for this purpose.
Ministry of Health
asked the Minister of Health how many women in his Department, or in Departments now comprised in the Ministry, were receiving a salary of £500 a year in June, 1914; and how many are receiving such a salary now?
:The number of women employed in 1914 in the Departments now comprised in the Ministry of Health who were receiving a salary of £500 a year or over was three. The corresponding number for 1921 is seven.
Safeguarding of Industries Bill
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it will be necessary to increase the staff of the Revenue Department in connection with the work to be cast upon them by the Safeguarding of Industries Bill; if not, by whom such work will be done; and whether he has formed any estimate of expenditure in connection with that matter, including the expenditure of the Board of Trade Committee, referees, etc.?
:I understand that the Board of Customs are not at present in a position to form any estimate as to what increase of staff, if any, may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties under the proposed legislation. I fear it is impossible to form any useful estimate as to expenditure by the Board of Trade which will be involved, as this must depend very largely on the number of inquiries to be made under Part II of the Act; but it does not seem likely to be at all considerable.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman think it likely that a Supplementary Estimate will be needed this year for the performance of these duties?
:It is impossible to give a definite answer to that question.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that about 42 Members, representing the British steel re-rollers industries in all parts of the country, have issued a memorandum in which they state that if the Safeguarding of Industries Bill is carried into effect the British re-rolling industry will be practicaly ruined, and that will be making a gift to the foreign competitors of an export trade valued at millions of pounds sterling per annum and which has remained in our hands for many years owing to our higher skill in pro- ducing the lighter gauges and more difficult products and to the unrestricted supplies of the necessary semi-raw steel; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
:I am aware that such a memorandum has been issued, but my experience is that anticipations of ruin which so often accompany the introduction of legislation are seldom realised.
:Will it not be ample compensation to the steel re-rollers industry to know that the glove industry is protected?
Peace Treaties
German Reparation
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any figures showing the cost of operating the German Reparation (Recovery) Act at the ports and centrally, including the cost of the Committee set up in connection with it?
:As to the general work of collecting the levy, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 13th June to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley). As regards the Committee, the only expenditure out of public funds is £6 13s. 0d. paid to shorthand writers, in addition to a sum of approximately £270 in respect of the salaries of officials seconded for the secretarial work.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures of imports into the United Kingdom from Germany since the coming into force of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, and figures for the same period prior to that date?
:The figures of imports into this country from Germany are compiled quarterly, and I hope to be able to furnish the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member in the course of the current month.
:When the right hon. Gentleman furnishes that, will he give comparable figures for the period preceding the enforcement of this Act?
:I will consider that.
Enemy Air Raids (Compensation)
asked the President of the Board of Trade when individual sufferers from air raids may expect to receive compensation?
:I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given respectively by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Finchley Division of Middlesex (Colonel Newman) on the 8th March, and by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on 20th June, copies of which I am sending him.
:When can these claims be settled? I was not here on those dates.
:Then I think the hon. and gallant Member will be very interested in reading the answers. It is a very complicated matter, and the answers deal with it fully.
:I do not agree that it is a complicated matter at all.
:Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is an integral part of the platform of the Anti-Waste party?
:What salary do you get for these questions?
Awards to Inventors (Royal Commission)
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many claims are still waiting to be heard by the Inventions Board, and on how many days the Inventions Board sat during May and June?
:I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors. The Royal Commission sat on nine days during May and June, and in addition the Investigating Committee, which normally consists of the Chairman and Secretary of the Royal Commission, sat on seven occasions. There are at present 180 cases listed for hearing before the Royal Commission, and 144 other cases are still under investigation.
:Cannot something be done to augment the number of sittings, otherwise these cases will go on for years?
. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that I have dealt with that once or twice before. There are two specific difficulties. The first is that very highly specialised gentlemen sit upon this Commission, and their time is, unfortunately, very much occupied; secondly, these are cases of very great elaboration and technical difficulty, and it is only possible to get them ready for investigation after rather long and elaborate prior preparation.
Coal Industry
Pit Head Prices
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price at which industrial and household coal was sold at the pit's mouth in 1913; and whether he can give any estimate, and, if so, what estimate, at which similar coal will be sold after the resumption of work in the coalfields?
:The average value at the pit head of all coal raised in the United Kingdom in 1913 was 10s. l½d. per ton. I regret that separate figures distinguishing between industrial and household coal are not available. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Percy) on Friday.
:Will my right hon. Friend tell us in a word with what figure now he can compare the figure of 10s. l½d. before the War?
:I cannot tell what the figure will be immediately after the 13 weeks' stoppage, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it is very unwise to prophesy. I can tell him what it was just before this stoppage, if that is any use.
:Did not the Government, when they promised the £10,000,000 to settle the coal dispute, have some idea of what the price of coal would be?
:They had some idea—
:That question was asked and answered last Friday.
Supplies, Fishing Vessels
asked the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates that coal will be again available without restriction for fishing vessels; and when the export of coal from this country will be permitted?
:All restrictions are removed as from to-day.
Imports
asked the Secretary for Mines what has been the total expenditure to date on the importation of coal; how much has been sold and for what amount; and what loss, if any, is likely to be incurred in connection with the whole transaction?
:I regret that it is impossible as yet to give the required information. Sales and cancellation of purchases are still proceeding; and, pending completion of the transaction and adjustment of the accounts, of which many items such as demurrage are not yet definitely ascertainable, I cannot undertake to forecast the final result.
Timber (Government Stocks)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are still holding any stocks of timber in this country; if so, can he state approximately what quantity is still held and what steps are being taken for its disposal; whether the special timber Department still exists; if so, how many officials are still employed in it; and what is the estimated cost for this year?
:The stocks of timber unsold at present held by the Government in England and Wales are approximately 1,414,000 cubic feet of standing, felled, and sawn timber, and 28,200 tons of pitwood and fuel wood. Steps are being taken to sell these stock by auction and otherwise as opportunities occur, but it is difficult to effect sales at present. The Timber Supplies Department is still in existence, and the number of officials employed is 290. The estimated cost of the Department for this year is £42,085.
:Does the right Gentleman find any difficulty in disposing of this timber, in view of the great demand from the building and other trades at the present time?
:I am told there is very great difficulty in getting rid of it at present. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the greater part of this timber is either standing or felled, and lying at various woods and plantations all over the United Kingdom. It is very troublesome stuff to dispose of.
British Empire Exhibition
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the manager of the British Empire Exhibition was appointed at a salary of £5,000 a year with the approval of the Board of Trade, and with unlimited powers to arrange for staff and administration expenses at a time when the committee had no funds; whether the appeal for funds made at the Mansion House in June, 1920, met with the success expected of it and necessary to the whole enterprise; and what is now the financial position of the undertaking?
:The selection of the general manager of the British Empire Exhibition was approved by the Board of Trade. The terms of his appointment, as I stated on the 10th May, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington, were settled by the Executive Council. All questions of expenditure, including cost of staff and administration, are submitted by the general manager for the scrutiny and approval of the Administrative and Finance Committees before final sanction by the Executive Council. No general appeal for the guarantee fund has yet been sent out, but I understand that one is on the point of issue which it is hoped will ensure the financial success of the undertaking.
:In lieu of the funds not being forthcoming from the public, am I to understand that the Government will be responsible for the expenses of the manager and staff?
:No, Sir, I have answered that question several times. The provision is this: that the Government obligation only comes into force if the other guarantees are forthcoming. The Government undertook to join the guarantee fund provided £500,000 was put up from other sources. Unless this is done the Government incur no responsibility whatever.
:Does not the hon. Gentleman think that £5,000 a year for, I think, three years at least is rather a big salary for an undertaking in which the Government will have a financial interest—is it not rather too large?
:I should hesitate to express an opinion on this matter, in view of the fact that it was considered by the Executive Council, which includes very distinguished bankers; and I do hesitate to say that a salary approved by them was not reasonable.
Canadian Cattle (Royal Commission)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry of Agriculture is contributing financially, directly or indirectly, towards the cost of counsel and their advisers who are appearing before the Royal Commission at present inquiring into the embargo on Canadian cattle; whether he is aware that the Irish Department of Agriculture is officially represented by counsel; and why Scottish interests concerned were not informed before the first meeting of the Commision that counsel could appear?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. As regards the third part of the question, the Commission held its first meeting for the hearing of evidence on the 30th May. On the 11th May a Press notice was issued by the authority of the Commissioners, and was printed in the leading newspapers of England and Scotand, to the effect that parties appearing before the Commission could, if they so desired, be represented by counsel. I may add that the Free Importation of Canadian Cattle Association, which, I believe, represents most of the bodies in Scotland interested in the raising of the embargo, is represented by counsel.
:Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, in view of the Irish Department of Agriculture being represented by counsel, it is very strongly felt in Scotland that the Scottish Board of Agriculture should likewise be represented, and may I ask him whether he is aware—
:That, I think, is a question for the Secretary for Scotland.
:Is it not a tremendous waste of public money for two bodies with special knowledge of this question to go to the expense of employing counsel?
:That is a matter of opinion.
:If this be a matter for the Secretary for Scotland to answer, why is it that the Leader of the House has replied to the question, which deals with representation by counsel of the Irish Agricultural Department?
:Is not the reason why Scotland has not been represented—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order ! "]
:It was the supplementary question that I said should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.
:Exactly—the Irish Department is represented by counsel; that is the point put here.
:The answer was that the Scottish Department might have been represented had they so desired.
:Is it not a fact that the reason Scotland was not represented before this Commission was that the Scottish Members who were interested in this were too busy defending the Irish policy of the Government?
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state approximately the date upon which the Report of the Commission upon the Embargo on the Importation of Canadian Cattle may be expected to be presented; and whether he can promise Parliamentary time for the discussion of this Report before the end of the Session?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for Dudley. As regards the last part of the question, until the Report has been received, I am not in a position to reply to it.
Greece and Turkey
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement regarding the military and political situation in Asia Minor, particularly in the neighbourhood of Ismid?
:With regard to the general situation in Asia Minor, there is nothing to add to previous statements and to the news published in the Press. General Franks proceeded to Ismid with representatives of France, Italy, the United States, and the Turkish Red Crescent on 28th June. He has reported that the situation is quiet and the discipline of the Kemalist troops who entered the town on the morning of the 28th, good.
asked the Prime Minister if it is a fact that the Greeks have closed the Dardanelles to all shipping; if His Majesty's Government has consented to this action; and if such consent is compatible with our neutrality?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the rest of the question does not therefore arise.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information with regard to the position in the Ismid peninsula; and whether the Russian Soviet trade delegation have been arrested and a seal placed on their offices by the British military police at Constantinople?
:In answer to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer just given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Stafford. As regards the second part, I understand that General Harington, the Allied Commander-in-Chief at Constantinople, has arrested about 60 dangerous individuals, who were plotting against the security of the city. The names of these persons have not been received, so that I cannot say whether any members of the Russian trade delegation are among them. I am making further inquiries on this point and as to the alleged closing of the delegation's offices.
League of Nations
Council Meetings
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent session of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva is now concluded; when and where the next meeting of the Council will take place; whether the President of the Board of Education will make a statement regarding the decisions of the session of the Council which he attended as British representative; and whether a copy of all the conclusions arrived at will be placed in the Library?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have not yet been informed as to the date of the next meeting of the Council, but I understand that it will be held at Geneva before the next meeting of the Assembly in September. I cannot promise that the business of the House will permit of a statement. It is the practice to place in the Library of the House copies of Reports and Resolutions adopted by the Council as soon as they are received.
:How are we to know what has been done?
:As soon as they are received, copies of the Reports will be placed in the Library.
:Who wants to know about it?
:Have they been received yet, does the right hon. Gentleman know?
:I speak subject to correction, but I do not think that copies have yet been received.
Expenses (British Contribution)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity to discuss Civil Service Estimates, Class 5, Vote 5 (Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations)?
:I regret that I am not in a position to name a day for this discussion.
:Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the Vote before the Session is over?
:I cannot say. It is not wholly within my control how the time shall be allocated.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great interest which was taken in this question by certain hon. Members of this House at Hyde Park on Sunday?
Employment Exchanges (Domestic Service)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the practice of officials and other persons who conduct employment exchanges of endeavouring to force young persons of both sexes to join the Domestic Workers' Trade Union, and of advising employers to join a similar association or union of employers; whether this is done in order to find work for, and justify the existence of, the scheme of State Employment Exchanges; and, in the interests of national economy, will he cause an end to be put to such ultra vires action of the officials and other persons concerned?
:I have been asked to reply to this question. Any practice such as that described in the question would be entirely contrary to the instructions of the Department, and I am not aware that it exists. Nor do I know of any association bearing the name of the "Domestic Workers' Trade Union." If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will supply me with any facts in his possession I will make inquiry. I should add that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that any functions are being undertaken in order to find work for the Employment Exchanges.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the attempt that is being made by minor officials at State Employment Exchanges to establish a system of State control of domestic service by laying down conditions of employment and rates of pay, by ordering young persons when in service to report themselves from time to time to the State Employment Exchanges, and asking mistresses to report on the young persons' work; and, in view of the Government's decision to abandon the policy of State control in any shape, will he communicate with the appropriate Government Department on the subject?
:I have been asked to reply to this question. No such attempt is being made. Special rules, dated 19th April, 1913, authorise Juvenile Advisory Committees to give information, advice, and assistance to boys and girls and their parents with respect to the choice of employment and other matters bearing thereon. I may inform my hon. and gallant friend that the Juvenile Advisory Committees are voluntary bodies, consisting largely of representatives of the Local Education Authority. In accordance with these rules certain of the Juvenile Committees have formulated standard conditions for the guidance of Employment Exchanges in dealing with boys and girls under 18, and in certain cases these committees further offer to assist the boys and girls by means of subsequent interviews, and invite employers to cooperate. The whole of this procedure is entirely voluntary, and relates only to boys and girls under 18.
:Is it not the fact that these Advisory Committees use Government or Board of Trade notepaper, and, therefore, when an employer or a mistress gets this paper with the Government stamp on it they think it is an official order?
:Of course, I cannot say what may be in the minds of the people who receive these letters. It is perfectly true these Advisory Committees —which do extremely valuable work—are set up in connection with, and assist, the work of the Employment Exchanges.
:Will the hon. Gentleman see that every effort is made to prevent sweated wages being paid to these young people?
Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury
asked the Prime Minister whether the payment out of public funds of two Patronage Secretaries is to be regarded as a permanent arrangement or only as a temporary one?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to what I said in Debate on the 23rd June, when I dealt expressly with the precise point raised in the question.
:Without in the least questioning the competence of the holders of these offices, would it not be possible to pay one of them out of the party funds?
:I dealt with the matter fully in Debate recently, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to look up my speech he will then know the view of the Government.
:Is it intended to continue these two offices during the winter, when the House will not be sitting?
:I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the speech I made on this subject in the Debate.
:The right hon. Gentleman said it would only be a temporary appointment.
:That is all I have to say on the subject.
Ministry of Transport
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to bring the Ministry of Transport to an end?
:I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave in reply to questions on this subject on the 22nd June last.
:Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer if I put down another question in a fortnight?
:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will repeat his question towards the close of the Session, I shall be in a better position to reply to it.
Government Subsidies
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the excep- tional circumstances under which the House has agreed in principle to contribute £10,000,000 of the taxpayers' money to subsidise the coal industry, he can give an assurance that the declared policy of the Government with regard to subventions and subsidies will not further be departed from?
:His Majesty's Government adhere to the general principles of the policy which has been declared in this House in regard to the cessation of Government subsidies.
Anglo-Japanese Alliance
asked the Prime Minister whether, when he makes his promised statement on the decision of the Imperial Conference with respect to the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, he will state what steps have been taken to ascertain the opinion of other countries affected by it, such as the United States and China?
:When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister submits his promised statement, he will try to make it as complete as possible.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what is the present position in view of the statements appearing in the Press, which are rather obscure?
:No, Sir. I am not in a position to answer that question.
Defence Force (Dispersal)
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to disband the Defence Force?
:My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Orders for the dispersal of the Defence Force were issued on Friday evening last.
:In addition to disbanding the private soldiers will the staffs and the clerical staff be disbanded as soon as possible?
:Certainly, as soon as possible.
Stationery Office Publications
38.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will give details of the following publications issued by His Majesty's Stationery Office during the past eight weeks: Living-in on Canal Boats, minutes of evidence taken before Department Committee (12s. 6d., post free 12s. 9d.); Board of Education classification for works on pure and applied science in the Science Library, Science Museum (18s., post free 18s. 3½d.); Peace Handbooks, Vol. 21, North Central and South America, Atlantic Islands (15s., post free 16s. 0½d.), Vol. 22, Pacific Islands (15s., post free 16s. 0½d.); Wreck Reports, No. 7,765 Wreck of the "David Lloyd George"
Title Date of Publication. Cost of Paper, Printing, etc. No. of Copies Printed. Authority. £. s. d. Living-in on Canal Boats, minutes of evidence taken before Departmental Committee (12s. 6d.). 13-6-1921 154 12 8 375 Ministry of Health. Board of Education. Classification for work on pure and applied science in the Science Library, Science Museum (18s.). 20-6-1921 148 17 10 250 Board of Education. Peace Handbooks, Vol. 21. North Central and South America, Atlantic Islands (15s. ٭). 20-6-1921 56 8 8 250 Foreign Office. Peace Handbooks, Vol. 22. Pacific Islands (15s.٭). 20-6-1921 59 16 6 250 Foreign Office. Wreck Reports, No. 7765; Wreck of the David Lloyd George (4d.). 18-6-1921 3 15 6 375 Board of Trade. The publications having only recently been issued it is not possible to give the sale figures. The prices have been fixed so as to cover in each case the cost of production, excluding cost of compilation. ٭ Includes editorial expenses.
Far Eastern Republic
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Government of the Far Eastern Republic; and, if so, what was its contents and what answer has been returned?
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if a Note has been received from the Republic of the Far East, Krasnoschtschekov, stating that, having been elected by universal suffrage, they claim to be a de facto Government, and asking for commencement of commercial relations;
(4d., post free 5d.); and will the Government state the cost of preparation, the names of the compilers, who authorised the works, how many copies have been printed, how many have been sold, and the loss or profit in respect of each publication?
:The answer is in tabular form, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
:In view of the present popularity of the last work mentioned here, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of advertising it extensively, and thus securing a big profit?
The following is the table:
(2) if a Note has been received from the Republic of the Far East protesting against the interference by Japanese forces with the peoples of this Republic and asking this Government and America to induce the Japanese to evacuate their territory?
:Two communications have been received by His Majesty's Government from the Government of the Far Eastern Republic. One contained a declaration by the Constituent Assembly that it represented the whole people of the Republic, and appealed to the Powers for the establishment of normal relations. The other raised various questions, in- cluding that of the continued presence of Japanese troops in Eastern Siberia. His Majesty's Government are not in diplomatic relations with the Far Eastern Republic, and no reply has been sent to either of these communications.
Transport
Dining Cars and Refreshment Room EmployéS
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of grades employed on the railways on dining cars and in refreshment rooms, stores, and cellars, who do not come within the conciliation grades, have not had their conditions standardised, notwithstanding promises made by the standing committee of railway managers that this shall be done; and whether, in view of the failure of that committee to carry out their promises, he will take immediate steps to see that it is done?
:As the answer is rather long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the answer :
I am aware that the rates of pay of the grades referred to have not been standardised. The railway companies consider that in view of the differing circumstances in which these men are employed on different railways, the fact that on some lines the dining car staff is employed by outside caterers, and that the appropriate rates of pay necessarily depend largely on the rates of pay received locally by men employed in similar positions in the hotel and catering industry, it would be impracticable to fix standard rates of pay for the men in railway employment. I have been informed by the National Union of Railway-men that in 1919 a statement was made on behalf of the General Managers' Committee that some machinery would be set up to deal with these grades, and I understand that the companies would be prepared to take part, in conjunction with employers in the catering trades generally, in setting up machinery which would deal with the rates of pay and conditions of service of these men together with those of the catering industry as a whole. In this connection I may men- tion that a proposal has been made to set up Trade Boards for the catering trades, and that negotiations are understood to be proceding with this object.
Motor Traffic
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the increasing number of accidents on the public highways due, for the most part, to the popularisation of motor traffic; whether the net results show the need for any further regulation; if so, in what direction; and what steps he is taking to keep his Department in close touch with all developments in road transport?
:I have no information to show that the suggestion in the first part of the question is correct. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Wallsend on 24th February, a copy of which I am sending to him.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the many recent prosecutions of drivers of heavy motor cars in the County of Somerset, especially passenger-carrying vehicles, for exceeding the local speed limit of 12 per hour; whether, in the interests of trade transport and the travelling public, he is prepared to consider an early revision of the speed limit; and whether he will use his influence with the Home Office to stay any further police proceedings except in cases of alleged driving to the danger of the public?
:My attention has been called to the fact that drivers of chars-à-bane have been prosecuted for exceeding the 12 miles per hour limit. This is not a local limit but the general law. I propose to await the report of the Departmental Committee, who are now considering the question of speeds of all vehicles, before taking any steps with a view to amending the existing law.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question?
:No, Sir; the existing law has to be obeyed.
Train Services
asked the Minister of Transport on what date it is proposed to re-instate the full schedule of trains which existed before the recent coal dispute on all railways; and what decisions for an immediate improvement have been taken?
:The railway companies are re-introducing their normal train services as rapidly as the position of their coal supplies permits, and as the stocks of individual companies vary the date of full resumption will not necessarily be the same for all railways. Increased train facilities have already been provided and many railways are advertising full services from Monday, 11th July.
Egypt (Don Cadet School)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Don Cadet School, which was removed to Ismailia, is still in existence; and, if so, when is it going to be disbanded?
:The Don Cadet School, the status of which I explained in my letter of 27th May to the hon. Member, is still in existence, and I regret that I cannot give any date by which it will be disbanded, or will cease to be a charge an His Majesty's Government.
Ex-Service Men
Overseas Trade Department
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will consider whether preferential treatment can be given to efficient ex-service men in his Department when making reductions therein?
:As I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on 30th June, I shall, in making reductions in the staff of the Department of Overseas Trade, give the fullest consideration to those who have served in His Majesty's forces. Subject to the requirements of efficiency and to considerations of special hardship, ex-service men will receive preferential treatment.
:As the hon. Member's first two questions involve additional expenditure will there not be, when the fact becomes known, some searching of Herts?
:Can my hon. Friend say whether in making the necessary reductions ex-service men with knowledge of overseas trade will have preference over civil servants who possess no such knowledge?
:The hon. Member with his longer experience knows the difficulties in this matter and that it is impossible to discharge established civil servants with pensionable rights in order to make way for discharged soldiers who are temporarily employed only. But I certainly can give the assurance that in all reductions of staff I shall carry out the principle embodied in the Lytton Report, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. In reply to the hon. Baronet I can only hope I shall have the support of the Anti-Waste party in at any rate a reasonable consideration of this matter.
:Other things being equal, do I understand that senior hands will have preference?
:I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by "senior hands."
:Those who have been employed longest, of course.
:No, Sir; if it comes to a question of the temporary officers in the Department, I shall certainly give preference, other things being equal, to men who have served with His Majesty's forces, as against a man, also a temporary, who has not so served, although the service of the latter in the Department may have been longer.
Tenancy Agreements
asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the hardship caused to ex-service men who let their houses to tenants for the duration of the War and are now unable to regain possession on account of the delay in ratifying the Turkish Treaty; whether he is aware that in most cases the present interpretation of the phrase the duration of the War has defeated the true intention of contracting parties; and whether he will consider the advisability of declaring by legislation or otherwise that, as between landlord and tenant, the War is now to be treated as at an end?
:The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the third part of the question, I understand that the Order in Council declaring the termination of the War may shortly be expected.
House of Commons Refreshment Department
asked the hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he is prepared to substitute ex-service men for the female assistants in the dining-rooms, tea-rooms, and Terrace of this House; and if he will at once take steps to that effect?
:In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I would say that since the termination of the War, the Kitchen Committee has employed a considerable number of ex-service men, and we propose to add to the number when suitable opportunities occur. But I do not think that it would be either just or desirable to dismiss summarily all our female servants, who have worked for us faithfully and efficiently during the last five or six years, and some of whom are widows of ex-service men.
:Is the hon. Member aware that many of these women have husbands who are occupying well-paid posts?
:No, Sir, I am not aware of that.
:Will the hon. Member inquire?
:I will certainly inquire.
Unfit Horses (Export)
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present position of his negotiations with the Belgian and Dutch Governments for the slaughter in this country of horses intended for food on the lines of the agreement which he has already concluded with the French Government?
:There has already been one meeting in Paris between representatives of the Ministry and the Dutch and Belgian Governments. A further conference has now been arranged to take place in London on the 19th July between the Ministry's representative and the representatives of the Belgian, Dutch, and French Governments.
:In view of the great interest taken in this matter, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress made in the negotiations?
:Yes; the proposals we have made were very well received by both the Belgian and the Dutch representatives at the meeting held in Paris.
Allotments (Committee of Inquiry)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has reached a decision in regard to the proposal recently made to the Ministry that a special committee of inquiry should be set up to examine the whole question of allotments, and to consider the expediency of revising the powers under which Defence of the Realm Act and other allotments are now held?
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has decided to grant the request of the National Union of Allotment Holders to set up a committee of inquiry; and, if so, whether he is in a position to announce the constitution of the committee?
:I have decided, in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland, to appoint a committee of inquiry into the whole question of allotments, subject to the approval of the Treasury to the cost. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend as to the constitution of the committee, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject.
Small Holdings
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, owing to the exceptional drought not experienced for a generation in Bedfordshire, serious losses have been incurred by old and new smallholders alike on the light lands in that county; and will he, therefore, instruct that in the case of the old tenants all suggested rent increases be abandoned, and in the case of the new or ex-service smallholders, that a portion of their already heavy rents be remitted this season?
:I am satisfied that the Bedfordshire County Council may be relied upon to deal fairly with their small holding tenants, and to take any steps necessary to meet cases of hardship arising from the present drought., I see no reason, therefore, to issue special instructions on the subject as suggested by the hon. Member.
further asked the Minister whether he is aware that, in reply to the increasing number of protests made to the Bedfordshire Agricultural Committee against the increases in the rents of smallholders in that county, the Committee's reply is to the effect that they are powerless to act otherwise, as being only agents for the Ministry they have no alternative but to carry out its instructions; and, in these circumstances, will he issue to the Committee such instructions as will effectively prevent many smallholders being ruined and turned off their holdings by rent increases which make intensive and remunerative cultivation quite impossible?
:The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Ministry has asked county councils to review the rents of their pre-War holdings so as to bring them into closer relation with the present value of agricultural land. Each case is to be dealt with on its merits, and it is explained to each tenant that he has the right to submit his case to arbitration if he considers the new rent fixed by the council excessive. So far as I am aware, there is no ground for the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question, and I see no reason for issuing any further instructions on the subject.
:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in regard to small holdings in Bedfordshire the trouble arises from the heavy charges put on for the ingoing valuation? Can he do something to meet that difficulty?
:I do not think that in that respect Bedfordshire differs from any other county.
:Is it not a very hard case, then, for the whole country?
Post Office
Official Postages
asked the Postmaster-General if the cost of official postages is credited to the Post Office accounts, and, if so, to what account it is debited and under what Vote of Supply it is shown?
:As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 16th June, credit is taken in the Commercial Accounts of the Post Office. ( See pages 6–7 of House of Commons Paper No. 218 of Session 1920.) The figures appear also in the Appendix to the Appropriation Account. ( See pages 427–434 of House of Commons Paper No. 4 of Session 1920.) No inter-Departmental payment is made and a Vote of Supply is not therefore required.
Postal Rates (Increase)
asked the Postmaster-General if, taking each of the new increases in postal rates, he will state how the public use of the facilities thus afforded has been affeected?
:For the reason given in my reply to the hon. Member for the Acton Division on the 21st June, it will not be possible to form any estimate for some time to come.
Bristol and Penzance Travelling Post Office
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed to abolish the Bristol and Penzance travelling post office; whether the "Daily Mail," "Daily News," "Times," "Daily Chronicle," the "Financier and Bullionist," the "Financial News," the "Financial Times," "Morning Post," and "Daily Telegraph" make up direct bags, whilst the "Daily Express, "Daily Mirror," "Daily Graphic," "Bristol Times," and "Mirror" make up direct bundles for this mail; whether the abolition of this travelling post office will cause all correspondence for Cornwall to miss delivery for the day if this travelling post office is abolished; and whether, since serious delay will occur to many places in Devonshire, this question can be reconsidered?
:The abolition of this sorting carriage, which runs between Bristol and Plymouth only, is under consideration. Bags of newspapers addressed to the carriage are, amongst other bags, conveyed to Bristol by the newspaper train from Paddington, which runs on to Exeter and Plymouth. I do not accept the hon. Member's suggestions as to delay to these newspapers or as to letters for Cornwall and Devon. I hope it will prove practicable to effect a substantial saving without any appreciable worsening of service.
:Why is one class of papers done up in bags while the picture papers are sent in bundles? Is there any special reason for that?
:I cannot say.
India
Agitators (Prosecutions)
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the action taken against agitators in India consists merely in prohibiting them from addressing meetings or whether they have been prosecuted and sentenced under the law?
:No, Sir. Prosecutions have been undertaken with good results in several instances.
Newspapers (Registration)
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the editors and proprietors of newspapers published in India are now registered under the Law as well as the printers and publishers?
:The Law requires registration of declarations only in the case of the printers and publishers of newspapers.
Ireland
Hospitals, Dublin
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the Annual Report of the Board of Superintendents of the Dublin hospitals issued last week; whether he is aware that the Report states that the Board are satisfied that all the hospitals are conducted in an economical and thoroughly efficient manner, but that all are in a more or less critical condition financially; whether he is aware that the indebtedness of each hospital is as follows: Westmoreland, £7,946; Meath Hospital and County Dublin Infirmary, £6,688; Cork Street Fever Hospital, £5,882; House of Industry Hospitals, £5,843; Rotunda, £5,014; Coombe, £4,355; Royal Victoria Eye and Ear, £7,500; Royal Hospital for Incurables, £7,279; and whether he will take immediate action to have grants made to these and to other hospitals in Ireland out of the £500,000 which has been allocated for the relief of voluntary hospitals in the United Kingdom or an equivalent grant to relieve their financial difficulties?
:The Chief Secretary for Ireland will answer this question.
:Where is he? On a point of Order. I have put down a question to the Minister of Health dealing with a purely health subject and the Minister of Health has passed it on to the Chief Secretary for Ireland who knows nothing about health in Ireland. The Chief Secretary is not here. What am I to do under the circumstances?
:In the Minister's absence, I will call on the hon. Member again at the end of the questions.
:He is not present now.
:I will call on the hon. Member again shortly.
:The Attorney-General for Ireland is behind the Speaker's Chair.
:I will call on the hon. Member again presently.
:I am done out of my chance.
Later ( when the Question was again called):
:I have been asked to postpone the question.
Belfast Goods (Boycott)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that there is a large advertisement on the front page of the "Freeman's Journal" in the issue of 25th June, advocating a boycott of all Belfast goods; and whether, in the interests of trade throughout Ireland, steps can be taken to prevent the publication of advertisements of this character intended to impede the natural flow of trade within the United Kingdom?
:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration.
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
Appeals (Delays)
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the appeal of C. A. Blake, late Royal Engineers, of 2, Priory Street, Green-heys, Manchester (B/D 41,359), submitted on 22nd December, 1920, is still unheard; whether he will expedite the hearing; whether he is aware of the excessive delay in the hearing of appeals by the Appeals Tribunals and the hardships thereby caused to appellants; and whether he will take steps to mitigate such hardships by increasing the number of tribunals and by enabling local committees to give grants-in-aid pending final decisions?
:I am informed by the Tribunal Authorities that this case will be heard during the present week, and that two additional tribunals have recently been set up to deal with appeals arising in the area of the North Western Region. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Royton on the 21st April, of which I am sending him a copy.
Statistics
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications for pensions which have been rejected; the number of pensions which have been terminated; the number of pensions which have been reduced; and the number of applications for pensions received within the last six months?
:During the last six months 59,000 first applications for pension were made by officers or men, of which 40,700 were accepted and 18,300 were rejected. During the same period 512,500 pensioners were re-examined by medical boards, with the result that in 264,000 cases the pension was continued at the same rate, in 45,500 cases it was increased, in 149,000 it was reduced, and in 54,500 cases the pension was not renewed.
Housing, Middlesbrough
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that considerable sickness and ill-health are being caused in the county borough of Middlesbrough owing to the large amount of overcrowding which exists on account of the shortage of houses, estimated by the local authority as over 2,000 houses; and will he therefore reconsider his decision not to sanction the immediate provision of a further 300 houses desired by the local authority?
:My Department has no information confirming the allegation made by the hon. Member. With regard to the latter part of the question, I am afraid I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's question on Wednesday last.
:Have not representations been received from the local authority to the effect that these houses are necessary in the interests of good health?
:Not that I am aware of.
Munitions (War Contracts)
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that firms working on contracts from the Ministry of Munitions during the War, who incurred extra expense on these contracts through having to pay the higher rate of wages ordered by the Ministry of Munitions to be paid, received compensation from the contracts claim branch of the Ministry; that claims for compensation of this nature are now considered by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission; that the Commission deals only with main contractors and not with subcontractors; that the referring of subcontractors to main contractors for reimbursement involves both parties in an enormous amount of extra trouble and investigation; and whether, since this extra money was ordered to be paid out by the Ministry of Munitions, he will arrange that all firms affected, whether main or sub-contractors, shall have their claims considered by the Disposal and Liquidation Commission?
:I have been asked to answer this question. In view of the arrangements existing between main contractors and their sub-contractors, it was not considered expedient that the Ministry of Munitions should deal with sub-contractors direct. The procedure of the Disposal and Liquidation Commission is to deal with sub-contractors only through the main contractors, and thus follows the practice of the late Ministry of Munitions. It is considered that no other course would be practicable, as subcontractors would in any case have to ascertain from the main contractors to which contract their claim related. It is considered, further, that even if it were practicable, it would be inadvisable to vary the practice at this late stage of liquidation.
Grocery Trade Board
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to make any statement to the House respecting the date when the rates of wages fixed by the Grocery Trade Board will come into operation?
:After very careful consideration of all the circumstances, and after personal consultations with the employers' and workers' sides of the Trade Board, my right hon. Friend reluctantly came to the conclusion that he would not be justified in making the rates obligatory, and they have accordingly been referred back to the Trade Board for early reconsideration. When the rates proposed by the Trade Board came up originally earlier in the year, the Minister, as a result of the many representations made, particularly on behalf of the smaller businesses, asked the Board to reconsider the application of the rates to smaller towns and rural areas. The Board, without reaching a decision upon the rates for the smaller towns, has re-affirmed the original rates proposed for the rural areas. It is hoped that the Trade Board will reach at an early date decisions which enable the conditions of employment in this trade to be settled on an acceptable basis—an object which it is the desire of my right hon. Friend, consistently with his powers under the Acts, to facilitate.
Education (Expenditure)
asked the President of the Board of Education if it is proposed to reduce the expenditure of the Board by 20 per cent. during the year 1922–23; and, if so, whether, in view of his statement that 65 per cent. of local educational expenditure is in respect of teachers' salaries, it will be possible to reduce the annual Education Vote by 20 per cent. without prejudice to the findings of the various Burnham Committees?
:I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board on the 23rd of June.
School Management Committees, Scotland
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether travelling expenses incurred by members of a school management committee in visiting schools within their area, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by members in attending meetings of the committee wherever held, are treated by the Scotch Education Department as proper charges against the Education (Scotland) Fund, and so fall to be paid by the education authority?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 12 of the Third Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918. Subject to the fulfilment of the conditions there prescribed, the expenses referred to would appear to constitute a proper charge upon the education fund for the area of the education authority concerned.
Entertainments Duty
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received from the Entertainments Duty for March, April, and May, 1919 and 1920, and for the corresponding months of the present year?
:As the answer is in tabular form, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The amounts received from the Entertainments Duty for March, April, and May, 1919 and 1920, and for the corresponding months of the present year, were as follow:
Month. 1919. 1920. 1921. £ £ £ March … 763,600 997,400 1,057,000 April … 792,100 999,900 1,017,600 May … 824,400 870,500 775,100
Revenue and Expenditure
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state whether the coal dispute is likely to have a greater adverse effect on the revenue for the year than he contemplated at the time of the introduction of the Budget?
:I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Pennefather) on the 30th of June last.
British Debt, United States
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of our debt to the United States and the accrued interest thereon; and when the next payment in reduction of the debt is due to be made and the amount thereof?
:I would refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper No. 142 of this year, from which it will be seen that the outstanding amount of the British debt to the United States Government is now $4,166,318,358, which, at par of exchange, is approximately £856,000,000. The only definite arrangement for reduction of this debt at present arrived at is that made for the repayment of a sum of $122,000,000 borrowed for purchase of silver dollars. Under this arrangement a further $30,500,000 will be repaid next April and May. The interest accrued unpaid on the debt to the United States Government is approximately $407,000,000.
Income Tax (Co-Operative Societies)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether co-operative societies are immune from taxation under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax Act of 1918?
:The answer is in the negative.
:Can the hon. Gentleman explain the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th June, during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, that co-operative societies are immune from the ordinary Income Tax law?
:In the case of a reference like that, the hon. Member should put down a further question.
Traffic Regulation, Long Acre
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that wagons are allowed to stand on both sides of Long Acre all day long, with the result that there is only a narrow passage between them, and that special police have to be detailed to regulate the traffic, and that it takes as long as 20 minutes on occasions to pass from one end to another in a car; will he explain why this particular privilege is granted to the occupants of shops along this business thoroughfare, particularly in view of the fact that members of the public occupying business offices in the vicinity are not allowed to leave their motor-cars outside for a longer period than 10 minutes; and does he propose to make any effort to clear Long Acre of this congestion?
:Owing to the trade in the neighbourhood, there is a constant succession of vehicles standing in this street; but, as they are loading or unloading, they are within their statutory rights. Police are continuously employed to prevent vehicles waiting for any other purpose. No preferential treatment is given to shopkeepers in Long Acre, and nothing short of street widening will eliminate congestion with the present volume of traffic. The trouble is at the moment complicated by road repairs.
Socialist Literature
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the University Socialist Federation forwarded a parcel of leaflets relating to the miners' dispute, entitled "An Appeal for Fair Play," together with a covering note, to the secretary of the Leeds Students' Socialist Society at the Hostel of the Resurrection, Leeds; that when the parcel, which had been opened and the covering letter pinned outside, was delivered the secretary was away; that shortly afterwards a detective called at the hostel and forced the caretaker, under threat of arrest, to destroy the leaflets, and also tried to extract from the caretaker the secretary's address; whether instructions have been given to the Post Office to open parcels addressed to socialist societies; whether he has read the leaflet in question; and whether he will state under what authority the caretaker was compelled to destroy the leaflets and threats were used in an endeavour to ascertain the whereabouts of the secretary?
:Neither the Home Office nor the Police had heard anything of this matter till the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper; but the Leeds police have now made inquiry of the caretaker of the hostel, and he states that he received a heavy parcel of printed matter open and with a letter to the Secretary enclosed; that he found it contained Communistic literature; and that he burned it on the advice of a person whom he met casually at a hotel, and took to be a detective "because he was a tall man." He did so with the approval of his own superiors. I have not seen the leaflet. No instructions have been given to the Post Office to open letters addressed to socialist societies.
Business of the House
:In view of the feeling that has been expressed by many Members, and the great importance of the subject, could the Leader of the House see his way to reconsider his decision about having no further discussion on the question of the Estimates Committee?
:No; it is quite impossible for me, in view of the state of business, to give further time to the appointment of that Committee. It has already had more time than I think any comparable Committee in my long experience of the House. But for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interest in the subject, it would have been appointed long ago.
:The right hon. Gentleman's decision is that the House of Commons must accept the Measure offered by the Government, or have none at all?
:Yes. As far as this Session is concerned the House of Commons must accept the Motion on the Paper as it now stands or do without the Committee. I do not know that it is very material at this stage of the Session which course they adopt, but the Motion on the Paper is one that had the support of the high authorities who were good enough to consult with me.
:In view of the enormous interest in the Bill which is to be read a Second time to-day [ Corn Production Acts ( Repeal ) Bill ] and the number of Members who wish to take part in the Debate, will the Government give us a second day?
:If I gave a second day, it could only be to-morrow, which is appointed for a Supply day, but I am hopeful that when the House has heard the case for the Bill it will find it possible to conclude the Debate at a single sitting.
Standing Committees
I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. Standing Committee B, which is considering the Railways Bill, has decided, on a vote, to sit for three days in the week, from two till six. That is going to inflict a very severe hardship on such Members of the Committee as desire to be present at Debates in this House, and it is going to operate with particular severity upon those parties in the House who form a small minority, and have Members sitting upon that Committee.
I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was putting a point of Order, not an argument.
:The point of Order is whether it is within the competence of a Standing Committee to come to a decision which precludes Members from attending Debate in this House, and, if so, under what Standing Order their powers are derived.
:I think it is clearly within the competence of the Committee. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (1) he will find that
"Standing Committees may sit during the Sitting and notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House."
It is perfectly clear that they are within their rights in deciding to sit during the Sitting of the House, notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House. I think the last words refer to a day when the House rises early.
:Could those words be construed to mean daily and for week after week as this Committee now proposes to do? I take it that Standing Order was intended to mean a day or two to get through certain forms of business, and it is rather stretching the meaning of the Standing Order to practically put that Committee in the place of this House for many hours a day.
:No; I recollect other cases of Committees, charged by the House with a heavy piece of work, sitting later than six o'clock.
:May I ask the Leader of the House on this point, as he directs the policy after all, whether, when we contemplated sending Bills to Grand Committees, we contemplated them sitting at the same time as the House was sitting, and whether, apart from this particular case, he will use his good services to prevent those Standing Committees, on which many of us must serve, obviously, if we are to maintain the proportion of influence that we have down here, sitting at the time the House is sitting on important business?
:I think it would be rather a delicate matter to answer what we contemplated when these Committees were established, "we" being, not the Government of the day, for which I speak, but, I presume, the general body of Members. But I remember this question being raised before. I remember that a section of the House, of which I think I was myself a Member, suggested that the sittings of Standing Committees should be on alternate days to the House. That was not approved by the House. It was not found practicable, and what this Committee, within the exercise of its discretion, has decided to do is what other Committees have done at other times under like circumstances. I am very sorry it should be necessary, but the Railways Bill is of great importance to each of the three parties concerned— the railway companies, the traders, and the State—and unless it can be placed on the Statute Book this Session, grave public injury will result to the community at large, and particularly to these two bodies. In these circumstances, I am glad that the Committee has undertaken to adopt this measure, in order to report in good time.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Report of Supply [1st July] and Report of Supply [14th June] be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ Mr. Chamberlain. ]
Orders of the Day
Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
:I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill. There are only five operative Clauses. The first deals with the Corn Production Acts, in which phrase is included Part I of the Agriculture Act. The result of that is that agriculture will be entirely decontrolled and guaranteed prices, control of cultivation, and the Wages Board will all disappear after the coming harvest. The second Clause arranges for payment in respect of this harvest by a composition instead of proceeding under the methods laid down by the Act of last year. The third, which is to me the most satisfactory Clause, enables us to spend an additional capital sum of £1,000,000 in England and Wales and Scotland for agricultural education and research, which is, I believe, the best way in which the State can help agriculture. The fourth Clause proposes the establishment of voluntary Joint Councils or Conciliation Boards on the Whitley Council principle to take the place of the Wages Board, which will be abolished; and the final Clause is merely consequential, dealing with Part II of the Agriculture Act, and it is the only respect in which Part II is dealt with at all, which substitutes another authority for the Wages Committees, which disappear. That is the whole object so far as the operative Clauses go. I do not suppose that any hon. Member, whether be he a political Friend or political opponent of mine, thinks that it is with any particular pleasure or satisfaction that I move this Bill. I realise that it is a very serious matter for the Government to reverse a policy so recently adopted. I regret very much the disappearance of many of the features of that policy, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I do not for one moment wish to shirk or minimise any particular responsibility for Part I of the Agriculture Act, which properly belongs to me. We have been impelled by absolute necessity, by the financial situation, to take this step. If the country is to carry on, it is quite clear, from the figures which I shall give later, and upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will also make a statement, that the agricultural policy as laid down in the Corn Production Act and the Agriculture Act cannot stand. We are bound, therefore, as a national necessity, to change the policy.
I should like to see a few words about that policy. In its origin it was entirely a war policy. Control of cultivation, which meant ploughing up orders, wages boards, and guaranteed prices, were all part of a policy designed to increase the production of food at a particular crisis in our history. They were initiated originally under D.O.R.A. Regulations, and they were reduced to legislation by the Corn Production Act. The Corn Production Act was a temporary Measure, and if it had not been extended by the Agricultural Act of last year it would have come to an end next year. The whole thing would have disappeared, control of cultivation, wages boards, and guaranteed prices. At that particular moment in our history, when our corn ships were being sunk, and when the necessity for tonnage was imperative, we determined to try to raise more food at home, even putting land not to its best economic use, upsetting rotations, and endeavouring to produce corn at all costs. The policy was very successful. We increased the acreage of arable land in Great Britain by 1,550,000 acres. We harvested in 1918 4,000,000 more quarters of wheat and 10,000,000 more quarters of oats than we had been in the habit of harvesting in previous years. As regards wages, the average rise between 1914 and 1921 has been about 160 per cent. The policy was a temporary one for war emergency, but so successful was it that the Government hoped to make it a permanent policy. They hoped to carry out in peace as an insurance against war risks in future the policy successfully carried out during the War. Therefore, the Agriculture Act, Part I, was passed last Session, carrying out that policy.
New guaranteed prices were put in the Act, much higher than the previous guaranteed prices, based on the cost of production and varying in the cost of production on a sort of sliding scale. The Wages Board, which would have disappeared automatically next year was given a renewed lease of life. The control of cultivation was maintained, I admit in a very modified form. It was in a modified form when the Bill was introduced into this House, but the Bill which was introduced into the House originally was a very different Measure from the Act which finally found its place on the Statute Book. In another place that very modified form of control of cultivation was practically swept away, and we were left with a very heavy liability as regards guaranteed prices and with no power whatever either to issue ploughing up orders or even to maintain under the plough land which was under the plough at the time. If the Government is to be criticised, as I suppose they will be criticised, it would be a fair line of criticism that Part I was not dropped when control was mutilated as it was in another place. Now we find that the policy cannot be maintained.
Three things have happened since the Act was passed, and they were three things almost entirely unforeseen. In the first place, the fall in prices has been infinitely heavier and more sudden than anybody anticipated. If there had been a gradual fall, if the fall had been accompanied by reduction in the cost of production, thereby diminishing the guaranteed price, the bill which we might have had to present to this House, year after year, in the shape of guaranteed prices, would have been a small one, and possibly an unobjectionable one; but the fall has not been gradual, it has been vertical. When I brought the Bill in last May, American wheat was selling in this country at 150s.; it is now about half that figure. British oats at that time were selling at 63s. a customary quarter; they are now about 41s. or 42s. The result is that the bill which will have to be presented to this House, in respect of this year's guarantees, will be a very heavy one, variously computed from £15,000,000 to £35,000,000, and unless this House and Parliament terminate Part I, here and now, we shall have a similar or perhaps a bigger fall next year and the year after, and so on, until Part I is terminated, and the cost to the State will be simply gigantic.
Another thing has happened, and that is that the financial position of the country is infinitely worse to-day than it was when the Bill was brought in, or when the Bill was passed into law. The financial position has been made much worse in the last three months by the coal stoppage.
:Good old miners' stoppage again!
:It is a fact. I do not mind saying that the proximate cause of the repeal of Part I has been the stoppage of the mines.
:Who stopped the mines?
:I am not going into that. I am merely dealing with facts. It is common knowledge, and nobody knows better than hon. Members opposite, that the financial position of the country has been rendered infinitely worse by the miners' strike.
:Not strike.
:Call it "stoppage," then.
:Speak English.
4.0 P.M.
:That is not all. In connection with the coal stoppage, Ministers have proclaimed time after time that there is to be no subsidising of industry. Every industry is to be put back on an economic basis. Subsidies have been refused to the mining industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, that is a mere temporary subsidy. This is a continuing subsidy year after year; and I ask how, in view of the statements that have been made in connection with the mining and other industries, could we contemplate in the present financial condition of the country this continuing subsidy to agriculture of a very heavy character year after year? That is the position, and these are the reasons that have compelled the Government to take the step which they are taking at this moment. I do not hesitate to say, looking at the matter from a purely agricultural standpoint, that I do not for a moment believe that it would be an advantage to the agricultural industry that it should be the one industry marked out for subsidies in the manner that I have described. I quite agree that it may be argued that this is not a subsidy. It may be argued, and I think we did argue—
:You did.
:I think we did argue that it was an insurance against certain War risks. You may, however, have an insurance policy where the premium is very high and where the benefits are very problematical, and, since the power of enforcing Cultivation Orders has been destroyed, that largely describes the position at the present moment. At all events, the Government decided that under the circumstances the policy could not be continued and that we must endeavour to get out of the difficulty in the best way possible in the interests of the industry and of the country as a whole. It has been suggested that we acted in a very hurried fashion, and that we did not fairly consider the matter. I can assure hon. Members that is not the case. The matter was very carefully considered by a Cabinet Committee who went into the whole question, and, before we decided on scrapping Part I we considered other suggestions. We considered, for example, leaving oats out of the guaranteed prices. There is no doubt that a subsidy on oats is much less defensible than a subsidy on wheat. The greater part of the oats grown in this country is not sold off the farm, it is used as food for stock; and the proportion in Scotland which is directly human food is very small. There might have been a great deal to be said for not having included oats in the first instance, but oats were in the Act, and growers of oats who might not also be growers of wheat were subjected to control of cultivation and the Wages Board just as much as the growers of wheat. Therefore if you had left out oats you would have done an injustice to the Scottish farmers and also to farmers in this country who grow oats in preference to wheat.
We then considered whether we might not scale down the guaranteed price for oats. There can be no doubt that the Royal Commission who fixed these guaranteed prices and whose figures were accepted by the Government put the price of oats very high. It is entirely out of the parity which has generally prevailed in the matter of wheat and oats. Ordinarily the parity has been wheat 100s., oats 55s. As regards these guaranteed prices, the figures are wheat 100s., oats 66s. I feel no doubt in my own mind that if the price for wheat be right the price for oats is too high. We thought that possibly the Commissioners who fix the guaranteed prices might go into the whole question of the relationship between the two and might scale down the guaranteed price of oats, but to tamper with a figure arrived at by a Royal Commission after taking evidence appeared to us to be a very serious proposition. Therefore, after considering the matter from every point of view, we came to the conclusion that the only fair and just, and the only successful way of dealing with the whole question would be to get rid of the policy, the war policy which has been extended into peace, of the Corn Production Act altogether, to decontrol agriculture and to get rid of the subsidy, of all vestige of control, and of the Wages Board at the same time. We laid down this principle to which everybody will assent, that this year's crop must be paid for. This year's crop was put in largely on the faith of these guarantees. The wages paid in respect of this year's harvest will be the wages under the Wages Board. The control of cultivation, whatever there is, will apply to the whole of this year's crop from the moment that the seed was sown until it is harvested in the autumn. Therefore, we could not possibly avoid paying for this year's crop. We lay it down therefore as a principle that the decontrol must take place after the harvest, after the last operations have been performed of this year's harvest, and before serious operations are commenced on next year's harvest, and that this year's crop must be paid for.
The only question was on what basis should we pay? Should we leave the Act to take its course, should we leave the matter until the end of March next year, should we take the great liability—as I say it might be £15,000,000 or it might be £35,000,000—or should we try and arrive at a fair composition with the growers of wheat and oats? Of course, I realise the difficulty of making any composition. There are some 400,000 occupiers, of whom probably 200,000 are growers of cereals. It is impossible to bargain with every individual. We felt, however, that we should be justified in making a bargain which was agreed to by the National Farmers' Union in England and the National Farmers' Union in Scotland, because they probably represent the majority of the growers of wheat and oats. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] There are also two other societies in Scotland concerned. At all events, we thought that was a fair proposition, and we have agreed, and we have put into the Bill, that, instead of paying in accordance with the terms of the Act, we will pay at the rate of £3 per acre on wheat and £4 per acre on oats, and that the payment, instead of being deferred until the market price has been ascertained after March, shall take place in January, so that the farmer, even if he gets less, as probably he will, will, at all events, get a certain and a prompt payment at an earlier date.
Of course, we have been told by some people that we are paying too little and by other people that we are paying too much. That would appear to indicate that we are proposing to pay about what is right. If we take the acreage of last year, and I have no reason to believe that the acreage of this year differs substantially from last year—the figures are not available yet, but they will be shortly—the payment will amount to something like £19,000,000, and it is a payment in respect of this year s crop only. Some hon. Members have thought that this was a composition which we were making with the farmers in respect of the fact that the Act is terminated now instead of by giving four years' notice. That is not so. The payment is in respect of this year's crop only. The only thing that the farmers of England, and I think the farmers of Scotland, stipulated for, and it is very much to their credit, was that an additional sum should be allocated to agricultural education and research. I am glad to say that we have been able to do that.
In asking the question whether we have done a wise thing or not, I would like to give the House some figures. It is impossible at this moment to say what the payment will be, because we have three uncertain facts. First of all, the acreage is to some extent uncertain, although we know it within limits. Secondly, the guaranteed prices are uncertain. It depends how much the cost of production has varied since 1919. Thirdly, the market price between September and March is, of course, uncertain. The experts on the Wheat Commission reckon that the guaranteed price for wheat this year would probably be 80s.—that is an increase of 17½ per cent. on the 68s. laid down in the Act—and that the guaranteed price for oats would be 53s.—that is 15 per cent. above the 46s. laid down in the Act. The present price of wheat is about 73s. 6d., and the present price of oats 41s. l1d. If, therefore, we were to pay on to-day's prices, the cost to the State, assuming the acreage to be the same, would be about £2,600,000 for wheat and £9,200,000 for oats, or, roughly, £12,000,000. There is, however, every indication that there is likely to be a much further fall. At all events, it is the view of the Wheat Commission that there will be such a fall, and the potential payments that would fall on the State, therefore, would be very heavy. For example, if wheat on the New York Exchange were to fall to 150 cents per bushel, that is to 59s. 6d. per quarter here, which is quite likely, the payment on wheat alone will be £9,600,000. If oats were to fall here to 30s. per statutory quarter, that is 32s. 3d. per customary quarter, the payment on oats would be £17,350,000. Both those figures are very likely to be reached. In that case, the total payment for which the State would be liable would be £26,950,000. Wheat, of course, might fall lower. Wheat might possibly fall to 100 cents per bushel on New York Exchange; that is 42s. per quarter here. That would make a payment on wheat alone of £15,000,000, and, if oats were at the figure that I have mentioned, £17,350,000, the liability falling on the State would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £32,000,000. Therefore, though I did not believe it to be any part of my duty to drive a hard bargain with the farmers, I think, on the whole, that we have made a fair bargain, by which the State is not likely to suffer and which will ensure to the farmer a prompt and earlier payment, which will be an advantage to him and everybody connected with the industry.
I want now to say something about the question of the abolition of the Wages Board, which is very much involved in this matter and about which I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal in the course of these Debates. It has been claimed over and over again that the Wages Board should be retained, even though the guaranteed prices and the control of cultivation disappeared, and it has been stated that the Wages Board was not part of our general policy and was defended on other grounds altogether. I do not know what is the basis for those statements. I believe that one statement by Lord Ernie, who was then Mr. Prothero, which might indicate such an intention, is quoted. What he said was that he preferred to put it on higher and more national grounds. But I do not think that that quotation is very favourable, even for hon. Members opposite, and he went on:
:That was the minimum wage, not the wages board.
:The wages board was merely set up to give effect to the minimum wage. The two things are absolutely identical. If there were no minimum wage what on earth would a wages board have to do? The object of wages boards is to fix the minimum wage and vary the minimum wage. I could give other quotations from Mr. Prothero and from the Lord Chancellor, who spoke about the "equipoise" between guaranteed prices and the extra cost to the farmer caused by the wages board, and if I might quote from myself I said over and over again in this House that these two matters hung together. Only last year, when we extended the Corn Production Act, we inserted a Clause to the effect that if the guaranteed prices were terminated by Order in Council the wages board and the whole of Part I should be terminated at the same time.
:It was not in the Act.
:It was moved in Committee, accepted by the Committee, and accepted by this House. Lord Lee, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill, said: very best they could in those circumstances. But the fact is, as Mr. Prothero showed in his original speech which I quoted, agriculture is an industry so varied and so complicated that the application of rigid rules is exceedingly difficult. The position to-day is that farmers are standing off every man they can unless they are thoroughly fit labourers, and the men who are not thoroughly fit to work, who used to be kept on the farms doing odd jobs, cannot be employed because the farmers cannot afford to pay their wages. I have received complaints from every part of the country that this is going on, and it is not only bad for the labourer, for the old man and the less fit man, and the man who has been damaged in health in the War, but it is exceedingly bad for cultivation.
Farmers now are just doing the necessary work and nothing else, because they cannot afford to keep these old men to do the odd jobs, and the extra jobs which ought to be done if they are to pay the Wages Board rate of wages. I know that permits can be given, but they can only be given in the event of some definite physical or mental disability. In the case of men who are not suffering from any definite physical or mental disability, permits cannot be given. The result is more unemployment on the farm as time goes on. The Wages Board was intended to fix minimum wages. In practice—I do not think this is the case in Scotland, but it is in England—it has fixed standard wages, rigid standard wages, applicable to all alike without any regard to questions of fitness or skill. That has had a fatal effect. The minimum wages are actually maximum, but in addition the question of hours is introduced. When minimum wages become standard wages, you introduce the whole machinery of rigid factory hours on the farm. That is exactly what has happened. We do not want to see agricultural labourers overworked or working too long hours, but in an uncertain industry like agriculture, dependent on weather conditions, where you cannot merely press a button and stop the process of production, where the process of production is always going on, you cannot have rigid factory hours, and I am certain that one effect of the Wages Board has been the introduction of rigid hours which were quite unsuitable to farming. There is another point. The Wages Board is coercive. It relies on prosecu- tions. Hon. Members opposite boast that the great advantage of the Wages Board is that they can get money out of the farmers by prosecution. You rely on coercion, inspection, espionage and police court prosecutions. If there is anything which is wanted in this country, both in the factory and on the farm, it is goodwill, and you will never get goodwill on the farm so long as you rely upon coercion.
:Only in Ireland.
:You have them in the factories.
:I think very likely, but in most factories there is nothing in the nature of a Wages Board. Just as in the case of railways, another great industry, we rely on voluntary conciliation boards to get over the difficulties that arise as regards wages, so I am convinced that on the farm we shall never get back to real good will until we have the policy of conciliation, and I look forward, as soon as this Measure becomes law, to setting up these councils on a voluntary basis, which I think will prove the greatest advantage to agriculture generally and to the labourers in particular. I certainly do not want to see any return to pre-War conditions. I have warned the farmers that the worst thing they could do is to attempt big cuts in wages so as to try to get back to pre-War conditions. I do not believe that they will do it. If they approach the matter in the spirit of conciliation, which I hope to see on both sides, and which I believe I shall see on both sides, I do not think you will get anything like pre-War conditions, but I think you will get a much healthier state of affairs than exists at the present time. The Council of the National Farmers' Union has passed this resolution:
"That the Council of the National Farmers' Union agrees to recommend to its county branches that, in view of the fact that the Government have decided to abolish the Wages Board, they should assent to the setting up of voluntary joint committees in the counties and of a central committee in London, to be composed of representatives of the National Farmers' Union and of organised agricultural workers, to deal with questions affecting wages in the industry."
That approach has already been made by the National Farmers' Union and also by the Central Landowners' Association, and I hope to see it reciprocated by the Labourers' Union and to see good will prevailing, so as to prevent anything like a return to pre-War conditions or ill will on the farms. That is really the whole Bill. I know it is a reversal of policy, but it is a reversal of policy rendered inevitable by existing financial considerations and by the condition of the country. By decontrolling agriculture, by releasing it from all its shackles, by allowing cultivators to follow their own interests and to put their land to the best economic advantage, by giving greater facilities to agricultural education—I shall hope to see a further establishment of farm institutes in different counties, where the sons of farmers can go for a short course in the winter and their womenfolk receive dairy instruction in the summer, and I hope to see certain free places allotted there for selected sons of agricultural labourers—by giving greater facilities for education, and, last of all, by substituting good will and conciliation for coercion and compulsory methods, I am not at all certain that this Bill, grievous as it is to have to reverse what we have done so lately, grievous as it is to have to abandon a policy deliberately adopted—I am not certain that this Bill will not make for what is best in agriculture in the long run.
:I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that the step which the Government is now proposing to take is almost unprecedented in the history of this House. The Government's action means the cancellation of an Act almost before the ink with which it is printed is dry. It means a complete reversal of the policy which the Government had previously laid down, and that reversal of policy has taken place without the resignation of any Minister which a reversal of policy of so drastic a character generally carries with it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is a Cabinet decision. It would be interesting to know whether it was a Cabinet decision based upon a recommendation from the Ministry of Agriculture. There is a very strong suspicion that the Ministry, as at present constituted, never intended that the Act should operate, and that impression is somewhat justified by the fact that three months after the Act was passed the Under-Secretary appointed to the Department had been one of its strongest and most bitter opponents in the other House, and had begged the other House to reject it. I believe he acted as a teller against it and he has never accepted it in any of its forms, and I think I am justified in saying that to its operation in the country he has shown very great hostility. That being so, it would be interesting to know whether the claim for the cancellation of this Act came from the Ministry rather than from those who are outside.
The Minister for Agriculture has made an interesting statement to-day. He has made what appeared to me to be an attack on the Agricultural Wages Board. In fact, the only part of his speech in which he showed any warmth or feeling was that part of it in which he criticised the Agricultural Wages Board. It is a rather strange contrast to some of his previous speeches. Speaking in this House last year the right hon. Gentleman said: What has happened since that time to warrant this condemnation of the Wages Board? There has been no different decision of the Wages Board; no alteration has been made in its Orders. All its decisions had been recorded previous to the right hon. Gentleman making the statement I have quoted, and therefore it is difficult to understand his attitude to-day. In his speech last year the right hon. Gentleman also said:
Let me go a little further into this question of the Wages Board, for that seems to be the pith of the whole matter. The guarantees do not seem to count now. The cultivation of land does not matter. Security of tenure, in so far as it was established by the Act, is to remain. It is the Agricultural Wages Board which has to bear the brunt of the attack. What is the Agricultural Wages Board? From the statements of the right hon. Gentleman one would almost think that it was some autocratic body that existed separate and distinct from the industry, and that it passed resolutions without any knowledge of the needs of the industry. But the Agricultural Wages Board is now and always has been composed of men actually engaged in farming, so far as the employers are concerned. I think I am correct in saying that the 16 representatives of the farmers who are on the Board to-day are actually engaged in farming. I am certain about 15 of them; the remaining one may be doubtful, but even he has been engaged in farming in the past. Surely a Board composed in that way cannot be looked at from the standpoint of the right hon. Gentleman. On the other side of the Board there are 16 representatives of the labourers, and the majority of them have at some time or other worked on the land, and therefore they have a practical knowledge of the subject. Then, again, the appointed members, a lady and six gentlemen, are people with some knowledge of agriculture. The late Chairman of the Board, who was Chairman when most of its Orders were made, has held the same office as that held by the right hon. Gentleman now. Others are men of high authority in the agricultural world. It is not, therefore, a body that has no knowledge of the subject, but is rather a body that has had practical association with agriculture.
It is rather strange now to recall that nearly all its decisions, apart from the decision in regard to the last increase of pay, have been more or less by mutual consent. Increases of wages have been agreed to by both sides. Surely there is nothing autocratic in that? If when they are fixed the orders of the Board are not carried out, it is not too much to ask that those who fail to obey the law should be prosecuted. But the right hon. Gentleman says we have not carried out the Act. He says the Act laid it down that we should fix minimum wages and that we have fixed standard wages. We have done nothing of the kind. We have fixed minimum wages. If those wages have become the standard, the farmers have made them the standard. There has never been any reason why the farmers should not pay more than the minimum rates fixed. In some cases it is well known that higher wages have been paid by mutual arrangement between the organisation of the employers and the organisation of the men. Therefore we have not failed in our duty in that respect, but rather have we carried out the intentions of the Act and the intentions of this House when it passed the Act. The Act can by no means be termed hurried legislation. In fact, the Noble Lord in charge of the Measure in another place made this statement: obtaining the views of all sections of the people who were interested in it. Then we all remember the wonderful speech which the Prime Minister made in the Caxton Hall, in which he reviewed the whole situation. It was only one of many remarkable speeches the Prime Minister has made—dealing with the question of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has urged upon us to-day the necessity for conciliation. We must not overlook the fact that all the elements of provocation to disturbance exist even more than the elements of conciliation. The labourer does not forget that the Prime Minister once told him: hand in Mesopotamia and eleswhere, we might be more satisfied that their position in this respect is the right one. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the need for increased production, and asked if we were to go back to a state of having no policy. He said it was not a farmers' Bill, but a Bill in the national interest, and that the Government did not intend to allow the industry to go back. It seems to me what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion was the direct opposite of what he is saying now. Evidently the country is to have no agricultural policy except the policy which the Government adopts in regard to most phases of our national life, namely, the policy of drift. I think it is lamentable that the House should be called upon to spend so much of its time considering an Act of this character, introduced by the Government, and then to be called upon to destroy all its own work afterwards. It is interesting to recall that the Farmers' Union specially urged the Government to carry through the Act. There was some danger of some of its most effective Clauses being dropped—they certainly were opposed in this House—and the Farmers' Union at a convention in Bristol passed a resolution urging on the Government to give effect to the proposals then before the House and pass them into law. It met with no strenuous opposition in this House. The Second Reading was carried without a Division, and the Third Reading was carried by 161 votes to 12, and it took 26 days in discussion in its different stages. [An HON MEMBER: "You opposed it!"] An hon. Member says I opposed it. I never voted against it. [An HON. MEMBER: " You opposed it by speech."] I never voted against the Bill. I opposed it in a speech, because I did not believe then, nor do I now believe, that it is the right policy to adopt in regard to agriculture. I stated in a speech on the Second Reading I did not agree with it because it was giving agriculture a political basis, which I knew in the course of time would prove the undoing of the industry. What is happening now is the fulfilment of my prediction. The Government while putting into the Act a Clause which would guarantee the industry for four years, now prepares to cancel it with scarcely a moment's notice. After having made that statement on the Second Reading, there was little or no opposition from these Benches to the Bill. We recognised the importance of something being done for agriculture, and whilst not being able to accept the position in all its aspects, we were not anxious to deprive the industry of some sort of security so far as the future was concerned. So much was that the case, that the Minister of Agriculture, in winding up the Debate on the Third Reading, paid a special tribute to the Members on these Benches for the help they had given him in getting the Bill through its various stages. I am quite prepared to meet any criticism which is put forward from that standpoint. In no way does it destroy the remarkable position we are in at the moment, so far as this Bill is concerned. We are cancelling legislation and violating the spirit of the four years' notice. I understand the cultivation Clauses are to go also. I have a document here tabulated by one of our county committees and containing a survey of the farms in a particular district. It says there are 4,450 acres which can be termed good, 695 indifferent and 277 bad, whilst another report shows 76 good, 178 indifferent and 57 bad.
:To what do the last figures refer?
5.0 P.M.
:To farms, and all this is to go on. The land, the most important national asset that we possess, is to be left in the hands of these people. They are to use it as they like; they are not to be called upon to cultivate it properly, and the old policy of three crops in one field is to continue. One of the most striking features of agriculture in this country before the War was to see field after field growing thistles and all sorts of weeds. All that is going on. All the powers of the County Committees to compel proper cultivation of the soil are being taken away, and we are going to drift back to the old conditions, in spite of the statements that all that must never recur—that there must be no repetition of the state of affairs in which we found ourselves at the time of the War.
I want to go back to the question of Wages Board and the four years' guarantee. In my judgment the worst feature of this Bill is the breach of faith it contains. I sometimes wonder what would be said in this House if an organisation of working men were to act in a similar manner to the Government. The mining industry of this country has arrived at a settlement after a long and protracted dispute. It might be urged that it is a settlement under duress so far as the miners are concerned, because certainly it is a settlement with which many do not agree, as is shown by the large number who voted against its acceptance. The settlement is two-fold in its character; there is the temporary arrangement and the permanent arrangement. If at the end of the temporary period the coal industry had recovered such a measure of prosperity, through demand being great and the price high, as to tempt the miners to repudiate the permanent part of the settlement because of the altered circumstances, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to ask the House, what would be said of the miners in this country? The miner would be held up to the country as a type of person who did not know what honour or honesty meant.
What is the difference between the miners repudiating a settlement they have made under duress, very largely, and the attitude of the Government in repudiating agreements made with the industry of agriculture and the country as a whole that four years' notice should be given before this Act was terminated? The action of the Government is of the most regrettable kind. We sometimes speak of this House as a model to be copied and looked up to, not only by the people of this country but by other nations and by other legislative assemblies; but if this House, through the action of the Government of the day, cannot honour its bond and keep its pledged word—not merely a pledge given at the time of an election, but a pledge placed in an Act of Parliament—what chance does it stand of commanding the confidence and respect of those who are told to look up to it? It has been said that the Wages Board must go with the guaranteed prices, because it is a necessary part of the Agriculture Act. I want to say here that that was not necessarily the position when the Coal Production Act was first introduced. The Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott), and the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) had been associated with previous efforts in this House to establish legal machinery for the purpose of dealing with the wages of agricultural workers, so the Agricultural Wages Board was largely the outcome of an agitation carried on in this House for many years before it was placed on the Statute Book. It is true that when the Agriculture Act was under consideration in this House the Wages Board was included by pressure on the Government, but the fact that it had to be initiated in that form, the fact that the Government accepted it, is in itself evidence that previously it was not considered to be necessarily a part of the working of the Act that the two things should go together.
I want here to enter a most emphatic protest against the destruction of the Wages Board, the only means of protection the agricultural labourer had in regard to his wages. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture has spoken of the need of conciliation. I have never been opposed to conciliation. I have been an advocate of it. During the existence of the Wages Board I have often advocated that conciliation committees should be established in all counties to deal with the questions not covered by the Wages Board itself, but they have not come into existence, although the organisation with which I am associated selected people in every county as their representatives on these conciliation committees. This was done at a time when the best feeling existed between us and the other side, but no success followed our efforts in this direction. The right hon. Gentleman says that provision is made in his Bill for conciliation committees. He knows himself that conciliation committees will not succeed, because the Bill goes on to say that if these councils or committees are not formed within three months of the passing of the Act the Government will take such steps as they think best adapted to "securing the voluntary formation thereof." It looks as though they are going to take power to compel a voluntary arrangement. It is evident the Minister has no faith in the arrangement in the Bill. What is the attitude being taken up already by farmers? I have a cutting from the "Western Daily Press" of the 20th of last month in which a farmer, in speaking of the decision to abolish the Wages Board, states that it means that farmers will get cheaper labour and will be able to make their men work longer hours. Is not that an indication that they intend to drift back? Only as recently as Saturday I came across a case where a farmer had reduced the wages of his workmen by 16s. a week. How is it possible to have conciliation committees formed with any degree of confidence with people who pretend they do not know that an Act has been passed or an Order has been issued, and have to be summoned to make them obey it, and yet who take the introduction of this Bill as an indication that the wages board order operates no longer and reduce their labourers' wages by 16s. a week—in this case from 46s. to 30s.? I know the farmer is not legally entitled to do it, but it shows the tendency of the times and what is going to happen. All round there are attempts on the part of farmers to reduce wages and force men back to the old conditions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) says, "Of course"; and yet I have heard him argue that the agricultural worker ought to have a wage equal to the wage earned in other industries. Now he endorses the statement that farmers will reduce wages and drift back to the old conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: 'NO, no!"]
:My interjection meant nothing of the kind. It simply meant that there is not sufficient money on many of the farms to pay the wages and the alternative is unemployment. We all wish that the men should have the biggest wage possible.
:It is a strange way to carry out the wish to give them the largest wage possible to abolish the only method that has ever given them any chance of getting such a wage, and I hope the House will hesitate before it gives a Second Heading to this Bill, which is going to create a great disturbance in the agricultural industry of this country.
It is to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not give us more information to justify the proposal to give £19,000,000 to agriculture. He knows perfectly well that it is by no means certain that if this Act were to continue to operate a penny need be paid in the way of guarantee. You cannot say with certainty that will take place. The increase in wages since 1919 does not warrant the fear; and why should the House be pledged to an expenditure of £19,000,000 in connection with a guarantee which the Minister himself cannot say with any definiteness is likely to be needed? It looks as though farmers have got that as a bribe. They have left to them the security of tenure—it is true they will not have the guarantees in future years —and they will also get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board, which means that the labourer is going to be ground down into the old state of misery and poverty that existed before the War. I want to protest against that being done. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted only a year or two ago that the industry was not sufficiently organised to prevent that taking place; and it is not fair or honest to tell this House that the agricultural industry is at the moment in a position to organise conciliation boards for itself in a way that will guarantee the absence of any disturbance in the months that lie ahead. I do not want to see disturbances, and as far as I am concerned I am anxious not to say anything that might lead to a disturbance; but it is perfectly obvious that if farmers seek to reduce wages, as all present conditions show, the spirit of the labourer is such at the moment that he will resist it to the best of his ability; and instead of that harmony which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think must radiate from the villages of this country we shall have disturbances like those that have taken place in other industries. I hope the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.
:In seconding the Amendment, I would like to say a word in reply to the criticism of the Minister that the Wages Board is not working properly, that it is regarded unfavourably by the agricultural industry and the farming population, that it necessitates inquiry, and that it is not in harmony with the requirements of the industry. If that is the case, the Minister ought not to abolish the Board, but to amend it, and make it an instrument that in his opinion would be fit to carry out the duties imposed upon it. It is known quite well that agricultural labourers, being widely scattered, cannot maintain their position without organisation. That is in accordance with the rights of the most important industry that this country-possesses. Surely he must be regarded as a man who should be cared for. He is the source of your health and strength, he is the feeder of your towns, and to remove from him the protection which you have given to him and which has worked well is entirely wrong. During the whole of the period which we are now reviewing, from the moment this Wages Board was inaugurated, there has been no trouble in the agricultural world. There have been none of those interruptions that have been manifested in so many other industries, and to attempt to excuse this Bill by laying the blame on the Wages Board is a mean and despicable method on the part of the Government of attempting to clothe their own defects.
The Minister tells us that the country cannot afford it and that another reason for bringing the Bill in is that the Act was not carried through in the manner in which he intended it to be carried through, but whose fault is that? He has a sufficient majority at the back of him to do anything he desires to do in this House, and if the Act was not in the form which was desired, it is his fault. It is the compulsory Clauses to which he was referring, and that is the weakness of the Act and of the Minister, and the reason they were removed was owing to representations, not so much from another place, as from some of the hon. Members behind him here. That is why some of those very important Clauses were deleted, and there is no doubt it did spoil his Bill. The country would have been prepared to pay anything that agriculture had demanded if you could have shown something in return for what you asked the country to pay. If you could have shown improved cultivation or a larger area brought under arable cultivation, there would have been no question; but I want to go a little further. When the Minister tells us the country cannot afford to pay, I am not sure that that is a good enough reason under any circumstances for bringing in this Bill, which breaks the faith of the Government. If everybody made the excuse that they could not afford to pay and could so easily relieve themselves of their liabilities as the Government are attempting to do at the present time, it would be a very bad moral principle to lay before the commercial people of this country, so that even on that ground the Government are in a weak position.
When we look further into this matter we are astounded, as my hon. Friend expressed it. This Act was not a hurried Measure; it was brought in after mature deliberation, we spent months on its consideration, we agreed that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the country as a whole, and I have heard the Minister many times say that it dealt with three classes, that it gave the farmer security of tenure, that it gave the country greater production, and that it gave the labourer the Wages Board. Since there were three parties to the contract, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he has consulted the third party? Has he taken into his counsels the third party, the greatest in number, and the most important factor in the country, the agricultural labourer? The right hon. Gentleman goes to the Farmers' Union and thinks he can settle the matter when he has agreed with them to pay them £3 per acre for wheat and £4 for oats, but when he tells us in his speech this afternoon that oats are the least defensible of the, guarantees that are given, will he tell us why, under those circumstances, he gives £4 for oats and only £3 for wheat? I am sure he will find it very difficult to answer that question in the light of his own expression. This is a very bad Bill; it is a breach of faith, it is a Bill that passed through this House, it was considered in another place, it received all the necessary and formal consents, the imprint of the head of the State, and it is the law of the land, and now, after so brief a period, the right hon. Gentleman comes to this House and asks us to abolish part of the Act. I am astonished that the farmers of this country have even entered into an agreement, because the farmer himself is the sufferer by this Bill. You are not satisfying the farmer. Only yesterday I asked a farmer, "How do you regard the amount which the Minister proposes to pay in the place of the guarantee which is now to be abolished? Do you regard it as a settlement for the four years or only for this year? "He answered, "Only for this year; we shall expect further sums next year, because we have made provision for this Act for four years ahead. We have ploughed up our grass land and altered our cultivation; we have made certain provisions to carry out this Act, and we shall expect compensation."
I think the Minister will find it very difficult to refute this. The farmer has been deceived just as much as any other section, and the only inducement I can see for him to accept the terms offered by the Minister is that he can get the money a little bit earlier. I am sure the country, when it contemplates the act of the Government, will never have confidence in any Measure that is passed through this House. With regard to the position of the labourer, I will read what the Prime Minister said in this connection at the Mansion House only last November. This has especial reference to these people whom you are leaving without protection in the way of securing reasonable wages in the future. The Prime Minister said: and the Government has been absorbed by the farmers their old grievances will loom more largely than ever, and pressure will be brought on the Government, and it may be that it will cost very much more than it would to carry out the Act. The Act is the bond of honour. Why, if it was not intended to be carried through, was this period of four years put in? It was put in because it was to give security and confidence to the industry. The Prime Minister said, "We do not intend to let the industry down." I wonder whether this is letting the industry down, or whether it is lifting it up. I was looking through my Shakespeare yesterday, and I found a passage that I think might have some reference here and might cause the Government to consider what it is doing. It is from the "Merchant of Venice": should be paid rather than that a Bill of this description should be brought in and passed through this House.
:I think that everyone who speaks on this Bill this afternoon will speak under a sense of shame. This Bill is simply the beginning of a confession of national bankruptcy, and I see no difference between going back on a statutory undertaking to make certain payments for at least four years and withdrawing pensions from our soldiers or the payment of interest on the National Debt. If the Bill pass, it will be the first time that the British nation has broken faith under a grave financial obligation in the history of the British Parliament. If the Bill passes, surely none of us will be able to feel the same pride in this great well-spring of democracy as we did before. We know, of course, that it is the fault of the Government and not the fault of the House, but all the same it is not pleasant, as a Member of the House, to be asked to set a permanent black mark against the good faith of the Parliament of which every one of us is proud to be a member. There is, of course, if hon. Members do not like that point of view, a possible alternative explanation of the present attitude of the Government. You can say either, as I have tried to indicate, that it is a flat, deliberate, inexplicable breach of faith, lowering us as it must do in the eyes of the whole world, or you can say, on a different line, that the Government had no idea in December of the cost involved in their Bill or the financial position in which the country would find itself in June. They were unable to multiply the 5,000,000 acres, which they could foresee then would be about the acreage planted with oats and wheat for this year, by £5 an acre, which, it was pretty obvious, might reasonably be the cost to them under the obligation which they were incurring. In fact, they have acted in the matter of first-class national importance with absolute feckless inability to make a simple calculation. The first explanation is the more disgraceful to Parliament in general, and the second one is not very much better to the great body of Coalition Members of whom the House is mainly composed.
What does it involve? It is the first serious admission that you have got that the Government of this country is beginning to take the financial position really seriously. You have admitted, for instance, the case made in October, 1919, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) when he drew the attention of the country to the fact of its serious financial position, and pointed out that the normal Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had then brought before us was not worth the paper on which it was written. The Prime Minister referred to the objections of the right hon. Gentleman at that time as being epileptic screaming about expenditure which, he was thankful to say, found no echo among the ranks of the Coalition party in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to my right hon. Friend being engaged in "a campaign of economic rant." Now, of course, it is coming true, and everybody is following the cry which the right hon. Gentleman and a few of us tried to raise at that time. We have to admit that the policy of the Coalition resembles nothing so much as the zig-zag flight of a snipe, without any sign of steadying down that even the snipe adopts if you give him long enough. First one Minister and then another takes charge, and their policies are never brought within any steady paramount set of principles for the simple reason that there is no steadying paramount set of principles by which that policy can be tested.
To explain the present position it should be added that last autumn the Minister of Agriculture was in charge, supported, as he was, by a long array of speeches by the Prime Minister. I am not going to quote these because it is rather a stale and unprofitable pastime quoting the speeches of the Prime Minister. Now at last the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or rather the receiver in bankruptcy, has taken charge, and word has gone forth that whatever happens, whatever the breach of the pledged word, whatever breach of the statutory undertaking of the Government is involved, in this penny-wise pound-foolish policy, it may be—just as they suddenly withdrew the coal subsidy—everything is to be done in order to avoid an increase of taxation next year. Therefore we have a fresh Ministry of Agriculture undoing the work of the previous one, and the Government seems to me to change its Ministers for this reason: that it is easier to swallow your colleague's principles than your own. That is the explanation.
That is not the end of it. If I do not make a fatal mistake, the Government before many months are over, if they have their way, will be up against something like a complete breakdown of the agricultural industry and an emigration of the younger men to the towns greater than ever we have seen before. The signs of it are visible for those with eyes to see. Then the snipe will take another turn and they will come back and say, "If this goes on we shall lose every single rural seat"—that is the sort of argument which appeals to them—and we must do something for agriculture after all! I agree with regard to the subsidiary reasons for the Government's action which my right hon. Friend opposite has proposed It was partly because the price of oats had been set too high. Mr. Prothero, as he then was, said that Members of this House said it quite clearly, but the Royal Commission had got rushed by some of the Scottish oat growers. It was not for want of warning that the Government acted as they did and they ought to have corrected it. They might have said, "We will take an oat figure which bears the same relation to the wheat figure as an average price of oats does to the average price of wheat," and they could have cut down their probable liabilities for oats alone by something like £10,000,000 for this year. Then, perhaps, we should not have had this Bill.
As to the second point, it must also have been in their minds—they should have realised it last Christmas when they forced Amendments made in another place upon the House—was that what they were doing for agriculture would prove a very strong argument when used by other persons for whom they were not doing the same thing. I can imagine strong language—much stronger than I can use in this House—by others in this matter. The Secretary for State for the Colonies, for instance, must have said that he could probably run Mesopotamia for half the money the Government were going to give the farmers. I can imagine also the miners—no doubt they did say it in different parts—saying, " If there are subsidies for farming, why not the mining industry as well?" There has been no valid reply to that argument. Let us con- sider it for a moment. Let us consider what the President of the Board said about his Bill. I think on the Second or Third Reading he said: quid pro quo for guaranteed prices, was cut down almost to a shadow in another place. The Government, instead of themselves fighting the Amendment made in another place, forced the acceptance of the Amendment upon this House within two days of Christmas, notwithstanding the protest some of us made here. From that moment the Bill became entirely unstable and its repeal was only a matter of time. Once the Government could not show that the nation would get a real return, they, of course, had no reply to the claims made by Ministers speaking for other industries. Here, again, the Government were warned just as definitely as they were in regard to the big bill coming in for oats at that time, and later. In the speech the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made in introducing his Estimates this year, he said nothing about the work of the Agricultural Committees under the Act. I did my little best to point out that unless year by year the Government could show that there was a steady advance in the standard of productivity of the land, and the standard of agriculture, a demand for the repeal of this Bill would certainly arise and grow in strength. I never dreamt that the Government would break their pledge as to the four years' notice—and the Bill would have lasted for a minimum of five years! Let me examine that point. Quite apart from the farmers' approval or disapproval of the action the Government is now taking, that action will have really a disastrous effect both on the agricultural industry and on the country in general.
In the first industry close co-operation and trust between the farmers and the Government is very important. I believe it is very important that the farmers should regard the experts of the Ministry of Agriculture, not as tricky and ignorant bureaucrats, but as anxious to do all they can for their good, and to assist them. So far as my experience goes, these men are experienced agriculturists, who can assist the farmers greatly if only the farmers will allow them to help. There is no doubt that the Bill, having been passed, the Board and all its servants and officials will be handicapped for years by the action which the Government is now proposing to take. No farmer will want to see a representative of the Ministry on his farm because of that breach of faith, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the back bench, who has always spoken of the unwillingness of the farmers to receive any sort of help, assistance, or encouragement from the State, will have his arguments in this matter abundantly justified. It is a thoroughly bad thing that that feeling of distrust and suspicion should be backed up as it will be by the action the Government has taken.
The action, in a wider sphere, will be worse still. May I in a word back up the very, very strong point made by my right hon. Friend who moved the Motion for the rejection of the Bill? The House will remember that only last week the Prime Minister looked forward to the coal agreement being kept for a couple of years at least, and, as he hoped, beyond that period. He said that the miners representatives were practically pledging themselves to the agreement. You are enabling every Labour leader to use, if he chooses, an extraordinarily strong argument against the binding character of any pledge he or his union may have made, if the circumstances change, and it may be inconvenient for him or the trade union to keep these pledges. They will say, "Why should we not treat our pledge as the Government have treated their pledge?" If these arguments are persisted in they may lead to the loss of many times over the amount of money which the Government will save under this Bill. If what I suggest is not done, it is only because the Labour leaders are more honourable to their pledged word than are His Majesty's Ministers sitting opposite to us this afternoon to theirs.
Let me turn to some of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill repeals the Corn Production Act, and Part I of the Agricultural Act: the remainder of the Corn Production Act is left on the Statute Book. Compensation for disturbance, introduction of the Evesham custom, compensation for continuous good farming, the farmer's appeal against the raising of his rent, greater latitude given to the farmers for making improvements at the cost of the landowners—all these things are left in the Bill. I am bound to say that they give me some ground for amusement—and it is as well to get what amusement we can out of a position like this. I remember being in the Committee upstairs, and hearing hon. Members who generally sit on the top back benches opposite attack control. They seemed to some of us at that time, I do not know whether justly or unjustly, that it was not control they so much wished to get rid of so much; the Clauses they chiefly mainly disliked were the Clauses which gave the farmers greater security and greater compensation at the expense of the landlord. Control, for what it is worth—and it was never worth much, and it was made less worth after another place had done with it—control has to go. But these compensation Clauses are to remain. I think I used the argument, and I believe hon. Members opposite agreed with me in that, that it really was not fair to ask the landowner to make a very big financial contribution towards the farmer's security and the security of the industry unless you were going to give him two things. Security for the nation, for which they would get a quid pro quo, and also that the labourers should have security. It seems to me, however, that it now amounts to this. They will not have power to make any Amendment or to putting forward any proposals in regard to an alteration of these Clauses in regard to compensation simply because the Agricultural Act itself is not in the repeal Bill at all. There is no attempt to touch Part II of the. Agricultural Act, which will be beyond the scope and outside the title of the Bill. It is a perfectly masterly piece of drafting that you can repeal Part I of a Bill without mentioning the Bill at all, and only refer to other Bills, the Corn Production Act, and others.
I think that the person who smiles most over the situation must be the Prime Minister. He will remember the big fights he had in 1913 with the Land Union with regard to all these points which he has now put on the Statute Book under the shelter of these guaranteed minimum prices. I remember during all that agita- tion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) opposed the Prime Minister strenuously and keenly in those days, and perhaps he will even now remain a loyal, though perhaps a little more uncomfortable, supporter of the Coalition Government. It is a dangerous sport to ride on a tiger when the tiger is the present Prime Minister.
With regard to compounding the claim for this year's harvest at £3 for wheat and £4 for oats I would like to say a word. My first point is that it is compounding and it is not a full discharge of the obligation. The question whether the Government is paying too much or too little must be a matter of speculation. It would suit my argument if I could argue that the £19,000,000 which is the extent of the liability to the farmers was more than they would have to pay this year. But I cannot do that. It seems to me that there is likely to be about 1,850,000 acres of wheat and 3,500,000 acres of oats. It seems to me that the farmers could show that the cost of production for this area by comparing it with 1919 would be at least 15 per cent. more.
That is rather a conservative estimate, because it seems to me that the price of wheat is very likely to go down even from the low price it has reached now, owing to the fact that the quotation for October futures in Winnipeg is 34 cents less per bushed than the present stock price in New York. All these must be matters of acute speculation dependant upon the Canadian harvest, which is always subject to the risk of a frost, upon the Argentine and Australian harvests, and the state of the American exchange, which, in the opinion of some financial experts, may break against us. When the price is dependant upon all these uncertainties it is not unreasonable to say that the cost of production may go higher than 15 per cent., and the actual price may come down below 60s. for wheat and 30s. or 35s. for oats per quarter. If that is so, the farmer would get under the terms of the Agriculture Act rather less than £4 an acre for wheat and rather more than £5 for oats. Consequently, they would get rather less than £1 a quarter on wheat and rather more than £l on oats, taking four quarters to the acre for wheat and five for oats. That means less than £4 for wheat and more than £5 for oats. The Government has promised £3 and £4 instead of that rather conservative figure of £4 and £5, and the farmer is to get his money in January instead of waiting until June or July. I think the Government has made a reasonable bargain in the interests of the taxpayer with regard to the guarantees this year, but it is worth while pointing out that the total liability of £19,000,000 depends practically upon all the claims being made.
:I stated that the liabilities might run to £20,000,000. I took into account that some claims might not be made, and that there would then be a reduction.
:I know one must not offer to make a bet in this House, but I am inclined to think that so many farmers are so thoroughly sick of the whole thing that they will not send in their claims, and it is more than likely that the total will work out nearer £17,000,000 or £18,000,000 than £19,000,000. Now I come to the question of wages. This Bill was received with considerable approval by a large number of farmers because it signalised to them the chance of going back to the old go-as-you-please methods with regard to paying employés. The Government have announced the; sweeping away of the guarantees and the Wages Board at the same time, and that was taken to be an announcement of policy by the Government. They are saying to the farmers: "We are tearing up our guarantees to you, but we invite you to take it out of your labour in order to make good the losses which will otherwise fall upon you." I say definitely that there is no connection in history or experience or in logic between guaranteed prices and the regulation by law of wage rates and conditions.
If you look into the history of this matter you will find that the Labour party was pledged to the policy of a. Wages Board before the War. The Liberal party was similarly pledged, up to the hilt, long before guaranteed prices were born or thought of, and it was the foremost plank in the Land Programme which the present Prime Minister took up, with the consent of the then Prime Minister, on behalf of the Liberal party. The present Minister of Pensions was a Member of the Land Inquiry Committee, which went into this matter very carefully, and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1913 made an extraordinarily forceful speech advocating the setting up of a Wages Board as the only way of raising the position of the agricultural labourer. I remember there used to be a body of younger Conservative Members, of whom Lord Astor was one, who came to exactly the same conclusion, that is was only by the machinery of the Wages Board that you could deal with what he regarded as a deplorable state of things. In another place, on the 21st April, 1919, very able speeches were made on this subject by Lord Salisbury and the Marquis of Lansdowne, in which, although they dissociated themselves from the Wages Board, they made it clear that there must be some organic and definite machinery for raising wages, having Statutory authority and confirmed by Statute. When we had the Corn Production Act placed before us, I was surprised to hear Mr. Prothero (who is now Lord Ernie) say:
6.0 P.M.
When this Bill under discussion becomes law, what will the farmer have gained by it? He will have gained a great deal. He will have gained the things for which he has been fighting for years. He will have gained security and compensation for disturbance and many other things for which the landlord will have to pay. The worker will have gained nothing at all and the farmer will have gained what he has been fighting for all along. I say to the Government if that is their policy they are steering straight for a greater breakdown in agriculture than that from which we are just emerging in the matter of the coal mines. Hon. Members may say that they do not intend the labourer to get nothing in this matter. They may say that the Wages Board may go, but there will be the Conciliation Committee which will do what ought to be done and do it in a more elastic way than the Wages Board. I have been a member of the Wages Board from the beginning, and I must say that I have never regarded it as a good system. I would like a much more elastic system under which both sides could meet one another more, and settle their differences without umpires if it can be done. But it is not possible to do it now, and that is the main point I am coming to. Certainly, so far as it is suggested that that desideratum, the settlement of wage matters by Conciliation Committees, will be brought about by this Bill, I say definitely that Clause 4 of the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. The Clause says: not know his record there. Unless the industry itself set up these committees on its own by the 1st of October they will not be set up at all. My main point is this. It is no use trying to set up these committees unless they will work, and unless 100 per cent. of the farmers will observe their recommendations. Otherwise it will be a farce to set them up. It will be only eye-wash. As soon as one prominent farmer breaks away and pays less than the rate recommended by the committee, or employs the men longer hours, or departs from any other condition laid down, and does it with impunity, the recommendations of the Conciliation Committee become a dead letter. The Workers' Unions, which exist solely for the purpose of collective bargaining for their members, will be smashed up and become useless if the farmers are allowed to break away and go as they please. Employment in agriculture, in that case, must relapse into the condition in which it was before the War, and no one who remembers the then condition of things wants to see that again. It would be a real disgrace and a disaster to the country which must be averted. In every other large trade now you have wages settled either by law or by agreements which carry the force of law, because the collective bargaining between the two sides is faithfully and exactly-observed by the employers. You cannot allow agriculture, the greatest industry in the country, to be an exception to that rule.
It may be said that the farmers have shown themselves willing to stand by these conciliation committees. To their honour the leading men in the Farmers' Union are very broad-minded and public-spirited and they are willing and even anxious to do this, but other leading men in Farmers' Unions and all over the country have, if one reads correctly the accounts of recent meetings of Farmers' Unions, taken an exactly opposite view. They have claimed that a farmer must be absolutely free to make his own bargain. If that is to be the case the conciliation committees will be rendered an absurdity. I have taken great trouble to try and find out the views of the best farmers whom I know on the subject. They may be a little illogical, but they say they are willing enough to accept the conciliation committee provided that they are not to be too closely bound by the recommendations that those committees make. I say definitely that that is not good enough. When even an inconsiderable minority breaks away it is too great a temptation for all farmers to break away, and then the thing becomes a farce and you precipitate the real struggle and bring about real disaster and real chaos in the industry.
There has been a real change coming over the countryside, greatly for the better, in the last three or four years, and you are risking the undoing of that. There is a feeling of confidence and independence unknown before and the best sign is that young men are staying in the villages where they ought to stay. They are settling down and are bringing up families. They are taking the skilled jobs on the farms, they are looking after tractors and other machinery, and their retention is essential if agriculture is really to prosper. Village halls and institutes are being used as social centres by the younger people, the shorter hours means gardening and allotment-keeping and football and cricket clubs flourish now where they were unknown before the War. Agricultural labour has been coming into its own and is being recognised for the skilled occupation which it really is. The best farmers welcome the new life and the new spirit, and even the new independence, but many do not welcome it and desire rather to get back to the conditions of the old days. I know quite well that wages may fall either with the continuance of the Wage Board system or under any other system, as the cost of living comes down. What, however, I am afraid of is the effect on the young men of getting chaos again, of a return of instability, of the effect on the young men and women who are now staying in the country and looking forward to making their livelihood and their career in the country. These people must have some certainty, some security, and some standard, even if the wage is to be less than it has been, both with regard to wages and other conditions. They must have a strong independent union behind them, speaking with the farmers on equal terms and face to face with them, and if they do not get that stability, that security, and a standard wage and conditions there will be a great migration to the towns and overseas. Even if they may do worse in the towns they will not stay in the country under unstable conditions and the nation will lose immeasurably by their removal from country to town.
Is there then no alternative to keeping the Agricultural Wages Board on indefinitely? I believe that that is the one central question which we shall have to discuss on this Bill. As an appointed member of the Wages Board I should like to consider and clear up a few points which have been brought against the Wages Board, a body that has been pretty badly misrepresented. Let me make this point first. Up to the last increase—the 46s. rate—which now prevails in most of the lower-paid counties in England and Wales, the rates fixed by the Board in those counties have always been below the rates for the rest in the cost of living. We have never yet come up to the full increase in the cost of living. It is well to point out that to the farmers who complain of our rates being excessive. The last increase—46s.—came to within one point of the cost of living rate, but then there was a rise in the cost of living from that time until November when it reached the peak and then it began to decline.
Secondly, up to the last increase the farmers themselves have always agreed to the increases that were made. They have not been forced upon them by the workers' representatives or by the appointed members of the Board, but they were agreed to by the farmers. On the last occasion when we settled on 46s. the farmers would not go above 42s., and the workers would not come down below 50s., and we had to agree to divide difference. Then it is said that the Wages Board has maintained the present rate of 46s. too long and that the industry can no longer stand that rate. If that is so—and I as an appointed member of the Board do not express an opinion on it—we have to decide the question to-morrow—it is not the fault of the Board as a whole nor of the appointed members in particular. It is rather the fault of the employers' side, because they did not give notice of any desire to reduce the rate until about three weeks ago. The matter will have to be considered to-morrow, and we may then establish a lower rate which may come in force at the middle of September after all the necessary formalities have been gone through. As the whole of the employers' side are now nominated by the Farmers' Union, if there is anyone to blame for maintaining the 46s. rate too long it is the farmers themselves, at any rate in England and Wales.
:All farmers do not belong to the Union.
:At any rate, they have not been articulate, and if there has been any fault for not trying to bring the rate down before, it lies with those who represent the organised farmers in the Farmers' Union and not with the Board. As an illustration of the need of the Board, may I say it is absolutely necessary, and if our Orders are to have the force of law, that the law should be observed and that persons should be prosecuted when they did not obey it. We have already collected £38,600 in arrears from farmers by the agency of the Board, and the Union claims with complete truth that they have collected over £100,000 in arrears in the same way. Those sums could not have been recovered unless there had been statutory authority behind the Orders and Rules we made. When it is said, as it is said with some justice, that the Board has not sufficient elasticity with regard to men getting old and not fully able-bodied, and, as employment is getting worse, such elasticity is in some respects desirable, let me say, as the Chairman of the Board pointed out in a letter to the "Times" the other day, that that is not the fault of the Board, but is rather the fault of the Statute under which the Board was established.
We were instructed to fix a minimum generally applicable, and the only exceptions we were allowed to make were for men suffering from physical or mental debility, who could get a permit of exemption, of which some 23,000 have been issued. That could be altered by Statute if the House desired, and it would only be necessary to allow us to grant permits of exemption in all cases in the event of agreement between the representatives of the workers and of the employers. It would only be necessary if an employer for any reason desired to pay less than the minimum rate for him to go before a district Committee, and all that is necessary could be done by the simple expedient of cancelling the words in the Act, "physical or mental disability," That would make it possible for the power of exemption to be- come general, and it would make our procedure perfectly elastic. But there should be agreement between the two sides. It is, therefore, not a fair charge against the Wages Board. It is due to the fact that the Statute under which the Board works is not so elastic as it ought to have been. Again I ask the question, Is there any alternative to the indefinite continuation of the Board? I say there is none unless and until it can be proved that in each district the conciliation machinery will really work and be universally honoured and observed by all parties to it. That machinery means not only Committees for each county to recommend rates and hours, but it also means local Committees to approve any exceptions due to age or infirmity, these to be the subject of agreement.
Now I want to indicate a way out, and I hope the Government will very carefully consider it. Let the Board be given more elasticity, as can be done quite simply by Statute. Having done that, let the Orders of the Wages Board continue until representatives of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour, after holding a public inquiry, are satisfied that the industry can really run its own affairs for itself, and that all the proper elements and conditions of collective bargaining will be observed throughout the industry. It ought to be perfectly simple for these Committees—it is the rule in all other industries that are regulated by Whitley Councils or Conciliation Committees—to secure 100 per cent. validity for their recommendations. My fear, and, indeed, the knowledge of the whole House, is that you would not secure that at the present time in agriculture. It ought to be simple to obtain in the various counties, from farmers employing labour, their signature to a slip saying, "We will undertake to observe the recommendations and decisions of the Conciliation Committees which are to be set up in this county." That could be done safely in parts of the country to-morrow. In Scotland it could be done. There the worker is in a very strong position, because of the system of yearly or half-yearly hirings.
The farmers and the workers have learned to know and to respect one another, and could be freed from the operations of the Agricultural Wages Board tomorrow without any harm being done. In Norfolk it could be done. There the movement for the unions has begun. The men's unions are very strong, the farmers' union is strong, and they have learned to know and respect one another. I should not mind Norfolk being free to run on its own account. It has led the way in this as in other matters. Is it too much to say to the farmers of the country, "As soon as you bring your system of organisation and your system of loyalty to your own union up to the stage which has already been reached in Scotland and in Norfolk, we will suspend the Orders of the Agricultural Wages Board; but we will not do it before because we do not want the risk of individual farmers cutting the rates below those which have been recommended, which must precipitate as big a strike or dislocation as any of the persons representing the workers can possibly organise"?
Hon. Members might ask, with regard to that suggestion, what would happen if it did not work; what would happen if, after this inquiry had been held, and it seemed likely to go on well, it did not work, and farmers still broke away, so that there was a danger of a strike? I say, first, that you could trust the farmers, once they had put their signatures to undertakings, to observe the recommendations of the conciliation committees. If you could not, you would have something up your sleeve, namely, the power of setting up Trade Boards for the industry; and farmers dislike Trade Boards in prospect even more than they dislike the Wages Board in actuality. I believe that this matter is most serious, and that neglect of it would be most dangerous. I believe that a way out, such as I have suggested, or some similar way, must be found. Quite apart from the question of a reasonable and proper standard of life for the workers, I would put the position merely on the narrow ground that the unions now are far too strong—and they are becoming stronger every day by fresh members joining—to go back to unregulated wages without a very great struggle, and they would have in that matter, as we have seen this afternoon, the whole of the trade union movement behind them, for this Bill in its present form is a blow at the whole principle of collective bargaining in industry. Unless, before we conclude this discussion to-day or tomorrow, the Government can indicate a real modification of their present position with regard to this question of wages, I shall vote against the Second Beading, feeling certain that, as long as the Bill is in this form, the Government are steering straight for an enormous agricultural disaster.
:I shall not intervene in this discussion for more than a few moments, nor shall I deal at length with the very forcible and interesting arguments which have been presented to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) on the question of Wages Boards. In fact, I do not think that I need deal with them, because there was contained within the speech of my right hon. Friend himself the refutation of the main part of the argument that he addressed to the House. He has confessed that the Wages Board system is inelastic and rigid; that, in fact, it causes many hardships because of its rigidity and its lack of elasticity; and that it sends many people out of the labour market who, while not able to earn the full amount of the Wages Board rate, might still be allowed to earn a wage which would certainly add greatly to the comfort of their lives. My right hon. Friend has confessed to all of these things, and, in addition, he has asseverated that in Scotland and in Norfolk you could do away with the Wages Board to-morrow, and leave the wage-earner in as good a position as that in which he at present is with it. If that be true, it would seem that there should be no great difficulty in the worker achieving the desired conditions for himself, without this elaborate mechanism which, upon my right hon. Friend's own confession, does a considerable amount of harm in the industry.
I know precisely why in Scotland you could do away with the Wages Board and suffer no ill. It is because the trade union of agricultural labourers in Scotland is better organised and is more coherent than in any other part of the country. According to my information, those who represent the labour movement in Scotland are confident that they can carry on just as well without the Wages Board. My right hon. Friend said that this Bill was an attack upon collective bargaining. On the contrary, the very illustration that he gives shows that by collective bargaining they have achieved all that the Wages Board has ever got. Accordingly, I do not think that we are very much concerned to notice the rest of my right hon. Friend's elaborate argument on that point.
I rose really to deal with the financial issue which is involved in the proposals of this Bill. Unless this Bill be passed, we shall be committed to an expenditure which I do not think it would be safe to estimate at less than £30,000,000 a year for next year and the four succeeding years. Is there anyone who is prepared to contemplate the possibility of such an impost upon the country at the present time in order to subsidise even the very important industry of agriculture?
:The Government were last year.
:My right hon. Friend is entitled to say that the opinion of the Government must have been different at the time when the original Act was passed, and I am not at the present moment concerned very much to argue whether we were right or wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not really disturbed by those somewhat sardonic cheers. What I am concerned about is the financial state of the country at the present time, and I am sure I should be regarded as very neglectful of my duty if I did not point out what would be involved in the continuance of that subsidy to the agricultural industry. I do not think that anyone anticipated the extraordinary drop that we have seen in agricultural prices.
:I did.
:My right hon. Friend was more prescient than many others, and he has a knowledge with regard to agriculture which very few people in this country possess. There is, however, this to be said for the course that we took, that the opinion upon which we proceeded was of a totally different character from the advice which my right hon. Friend gave to the House when this matter was previously discussed. I should like to say quite bluntly and plainly that, in the present condition of our finances, it is impossible for us to face a subsidy of this character, and that we have absolutely no option except to come to the House and say what the state of matters is, and how impossible it would be for us to continue the prospect of an expenditure of this kind when our other commitments are so colossal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne made, I think, the most eloquent speech that I have ever heard him make in this House upon this question. He spoke with a fervour and a vehemence which at some stages rather surprised me. The last time I heard him make an important speech—not, indeed in this House—was in connection with another matter of subsidy. Upon that occasion he wanted the Government to subsidise the tin mining industry, and I am afraid that he did not succeed. Now, as I understand, his interests are not so much concerned with the tin mining industry as with the agricultural industry. Someone once said that everyone suffered from translation except possibly a bishop; but even the anticipation of translation has awakened in my right hon. Friend an eloquence to-day which none of us have previously suspected. He has accused us of some dishonour in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Whatever you may say in regard to the sanctity of an Act of Parliament, it is always very well known to everyone that an Act of Parliament can be repealed; and, if it be the duty of Parliament to repeal it, under conditions which necessitate that action, it would show a great lack of courage on the part of the Government to refuse to come to the House—
:When it is specifically stated in that Act that four years' notice must be given?
:No doubt the Act provides that the guarantee may go on for a period of five years, but it is not necessitated by the Act of Parliament that we should be foreclosed from dealing with a situation which is entirely different from that in which the Act was passed. Accordingly, if we are free to repeal this Act, then undoubtedly the necessity has arisen for doing so. I have not yet heard any argument against the bargain we have made. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend who has just spoken has stated that the Government has made a very good bargain, and that, indeed, we have got out of everything by the payment of a sum which is only four-fifths of what my right hon. Friend himself had estimated would be necessary for this year. Under these conditions, I imagine that the House will consider that we have behaved wisely in dealing with this year's crop upon the terms to which reference has been made, and that, moreover, the matter is not without some consolation from the point of view of the taxpayer. We have to pay this amount of money because prices have gone down. If prices had kept up we should not have had to pay. But, if prices had kept up, the consumer in this country would have had to pay more for his food. It is because the cost of food has been brought down that the necessity for this subsidy has arisen, and the country itself benefits to a far larger degree by the reduction in the cost of imported food than it suffers by the subsidy which we are now proposing to pay. I have described the conditions in which we stand, and, as I have said, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regard it as my duty to inform the House of the plain truth. For that reason, the Second Beading of this Bill is now sought by the Government.
:At last we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I complained of his absence last year, and I do not understand why the Leader of the House was not here last year. Here is an Act passed last year which involved the taxpayer in a liability, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of something like £30,000,000 a year, and we never had a single word from the Exchequer. These are words spoken by myself:
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer has never said one word upon a measure which may involve the taxpayers in a payment of something like £35,000,000 in one year."
I do not understand where the Leader of the House was. Where was he last year when this great liability was placed upon the Exchequer? I think we have some right to complain. I quoted the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Home) with approval last year in the Third Reading Debate. I think he makes admirable speeches outside, but his action is not quite up to the mark inside yet. I quote this from him:
"There is nothing more blighting to the prosperity of the country than Government control. There is nothing that was so weakening to initiative and enterprise as dependence upon the State."
I want to know have the Government finished with half-baked legislation of this kind—the semi-socialism they have been engaged in since the present Parliament commenced. A point of Order was raised this afternoon, and the Leader of the House was asked to make some pronouncement upon the sitting of a Committee upstairs during the Sittings of the House upon the Railways Bill. Why do you not drop all this half-baked stuff? Leave it alone. You will be much better without it. Possibly next year we shall want to repeal the Railways Bill. That is the complaint I have against the Government. They will not consider their legislation. It has been rushing through the House since the War. We do not want rushing legislation, all of which costs money.
:The Labour party did.
:The Government and the Labour party are the same. What we want to-day is rest and retrenchment. I have said so from the first, and I will go on saying so. I want to say a word or two on the financial provisions of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Agriculture have estimated that the Corn Production Act is going to cost £19,000,000 this year. I am not quite so sure. We are told the Wheat Commission estimated that there would be much lower prices for wheat. But it is only two years ago since we were told by the then Food Controller that there would be an absolute scarcity of wheat in the world. We are told all sorts of things by these Commissions. I have no faith in them whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me the other day, I thought rather tartly, that no sane man believed the Budget was going to balance.
:The right hon. Gentleman must not put it like that. I certainly did not mean to be tart. In answer to his question I said no sane man could believe that we should get the revenue we had anticipated.
:That means that the Budget will not balance.
:Not necessarily. There was a surplus disclosed in the Budget.
:Yes, a surplus, but a very visionary one, and if your revenue does not come up to your expectations, where will your surplus be? That is really the point the House has to consider. You are going to inflate prices this year. You cannot pay your way. Your expenditure is too great, caused partly by this half-baked socialistic legislation which you have introduced since the present Parliament began. Therefore you cannot pay your way. You will have to inflate the currency. You will have, so to speak, to print paper money. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not know what they are going to do. What are they going to do?
:Reduce expenditure.
:I agree, but they will not do it. They cannot, at any rate, do it this year. The American exchange will almost certainly go against us. That will put up the price of wheat and oats, and, if so, will you need to spend £19,000,000 in this subsidy to the agricultural interest? I doubt it very much. Of course we have had the great coal strike. The industries of the country are paralysed. There have been no exports. What will be the effect on the exchange, and what will be the effect on agricultural prices? I think that is one of the subjects Parliament might very well turn its attention to—how we are going to pay for our food imports because of the lack of exports.
I should like to say a word or two about the Wages Board. Of course, to me there is a fundamental misconception in all these matters. You may fix wages by Act of Parliament, but you cannot compel employment at those wages. It is fundamentally wrong. I say, with great respect to my Labour friends, that the more Parliament brings in legislation dealing with wages, the greater will be the danger of the larger issues of Imperial policy being neglected in the constituencies. What will be the cry now in the agricultural constituencies? "The Wages Board put up wages. The abolition of the Wages Board will reduce them." You will never get an Imperial verdict. You will get a verdict upon wages. The whole of your appeal at the next Election will be upon the question of wages, which you had no right to interfere with at all. Unless you can guarantee employment you have no right to fix wages. I may be an antediluvian person, but I think I have the authority of all the economists and all the great financiers of the past. I do not think even the newer economists, like the Prime Minister and others, will be more successful than were Mr. Gladstone and men of that ilk. The agricultural labourer, I know, has not been able to protect himself. One of the faults of the Wages Board to-day is that it has really kept down the wages of the efficient man and kept too high the wages of the inefficient man. But I go further than that. I take a very serious view indeed of this Bill. It is not a question of subsidy, it is not a question of guarantee, it is not a question of the Wages Board. Really it is a question of Parliamentary and statutory honour. Let us assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Agriculture made a bargain last year in their private capacity. Does anyone really believe that they would not have carried it out? The country is not so nearly bankrupt as that. Does anyone say this country is so near bankruptcy that it cannot stand the subsidy in this Act for the time which is enacted in the Act of Parliament?
:We cannot afford it.
:I do not believe the country is in such a serious state as that, and if it were, if the hon. Member had made a bargain he would go bankrupt rather than repudiate it. I do not want the country to go bankrupt, but I want it to have some regard for its statutory obligations. The right hon. Gentleman is dealing the greatest blow at Parliamentary institutions when he says, "We passed an Act last year and entered into a bargain with 600,000 labourers and we are going to repeal it this year." You cannot do it. Here is an Act on the Statute Book passed last December. Is not that a statutory bargain? The House of Commons solemnly passed an Act of Parliament. Is the country to take no notice of it?
:You might as well say that any Act once passed could never be altered.
:I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any precedent for this kind of legislation. I have been thirty years in the House, and I have never known such legislation as this proposed in 1920 and proposed by the same Government to be repealed in 1921. And of course it is stated clearly in the Act that four years' notice shall be given before it is repealed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
"Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty on an Address presented—"
:Read the beginning of the Clause.
:Certainly.
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the provisions of the Act of 1917 shall continue in force until Parliament otherwise determines—"
What on earth is the good of putting in in addition
"Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, on an Address presented to him by both Houses of Parliament, praying that the Act of 1917 shall cease to be in force, by Order in Council to declare that that Act shall cease to be in force on the expiration of the fourth year subsequent to the year in which the Order is made"?
:In order to prevent bringing in a Bill for that purpose.
:If you did not mean that the Act was to go on for four years, why put it in at all? I cannot agree with my Bolshevik friends across the way. I have some respect for law and order. Suppose a Labour Government came into power, which is not unlikely. Would the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) say that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day had two or three years ago proposed to pay 5 per cent. interest on the National Debt Parliament could repudiate that liability?
:That is a different matter altogether.
:If you are to repudiate this liability surely you can repudiate the liability of the National Debt. That is the example which hon. Gentlemen opposite are setting. I take a very serious view of this situation. I do not believe that we are so poor that we have to dishonour a Parliamentary pledge and a statutory bargain. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should agree to give the statutory notice. Let us say that Parliament should honour its bond. I have an immense respect for Parliament and the House of Commons. We are sent here representing our constituents, and we are supposed to have the confidence of our electors. What are we going to say when we go to our constituents and they say, "You passed an Act in December and in July you proposed to repeal it." The Minister of Agriculture would have had quite a different appeal to make to the electors of Taunton the other day. You have made a bargain and you must carry it out. I believe that the sanctity of Parliamentary institutions are far more important than the millions of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to pay. I did not believe in the Bill last year. I never believed in it; but you have made the bargain, and if any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite had been advised against making a bargain, and they had made it, surely they would stick to it. That is the foundation of all our Parliamentary policy. If we are not to have any respect for legislation which is passed through this House after great discussion, which goes to another place and passes through there, and receives the Royal Assent, for what are we to have respect? I suggest to the Government that they should carry out the provisions of the Act and give the statutory notice. It would be far better for the country as a whole that they should pay this subsidy than that Parliament should break its honourable bond.
:The right hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech said that he was opposed to this Act last year, and, I believe, voted against it. I was one of those who believed in the Act last year, and I believe in the efficacy of the Act at the present time. Those of us who listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced the original Act cannot but feel sympathy with him in the position into which he has, most unfortunately, been forced. He then dealt with us with great courtesy, which we hope and believe we shall get when this Bill goes into Committee; but I confess that I am most disappointed with his speech to-day. He appeared in the usual white sheet, but it seemed very much like a dirty blanket, because he proceeded to eat his words right through, insofar as he uttered them on the introduction of the. Bill last year. Little, if anything, was said about the financial aspect of the case, and I shall certainly vote for the Amendment to reject the Bill unless I am convinced that the financial state of the country is such that it is absolutely imperative for us to scrap the Bill. Therefore, I welcome at this stage the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it altogether such a matter of finance? I should like to point out that when the Bill was introduced last year, the right hon. Gentleman said:
These Acts were not brought in in any way to make the farmer into a rich man, but to give more security to the farmer, and we gave him that security, perfectly rightly, because the country had demanded that he should put increased capital into his land. It was because of the fact that the increased capital was put into the land, with no guarantee of additional profit on it, that he was given this security. The security was a very hard blow to many a landlord, but it was accepted because it was thought to be in the national interest. Is that going to stand as it is? You have set up Agricultural Committees, whose duty it is to go round the country and to see that the land is properly farmed and properly cultivated. You have done that because you have taken away from the landlords their power of control over their tenants. As one who has been intimately connected with the land for the last 30 years, I am aware of the fact that you do not want that control over good farmers. You want that control only over the bad farmer, the bad cultivator of the soil. Either the Mover or the Seconder of the Amendment alluded to the number of farms which are badly cultivated in this country. What are you going to do with them? It is still in the national interest that they should be properly cultivated. You have taken the power from the landlord and transferred it to the Agricultural Committees. Now you are going to take away the power of the Agricultural Committees. What are you going to do to deal with the men who farm their land indifferently?
With respect to the guarantee, my right hon. Friend seems to demur that it was for four years. I differ from him. I maintain that it was a four years' guarantee, and that on that bond many a man has bought his farm. Some of my friends opposite may say that he was a bloated capitalist, and so much the worse for him. So much the worse for the people who lent him the money to buy his farm. However, he is a man more or less capable of looking after himself. What are you going to do with the men who fought for their country, the men you have put upon the land and encouraged to go on the land, not all on market garden land, but on corn-growing land? You have put them under this very guarantee, that for four years they will get guaranteed prices. These are men who are not very much affected by the Wages Board, because they are men who have put their own labour into the land. It was because they put their own labour into the land, and because they had this guarantee, that they were able to pay the big rents demanded. What are you going to do with these men and with their rents?
I agree that if you can possibly do it, you should do away with subsidies. I am not going to mention the railway subsidy, because it is a matter of which I know nothing; but a question was brought before the House the other day with regard to the Post Office. We had a discussion on the Post Office service, and we were told that every industry must stand on its own basis, and that the subsidy to the Post Office, because it had made a loss, must cease. How was that to be done? It was to be done by increasing the cost of postal rates to the public. Are you going to act in the same way in regard to agriculture? If you want to make agriculture stand on its own basis you must increase the value of its produce, and the consumer will have to pay more; but you have barred, and rightly barred, yourself from that, by saying that you will put no tax upon food. Why did you increase the postal rates? Because you wanted to keep, and the House insisted on your keeping, the Government's bond with the postal service. That bond was a bonus which goes on until September, and it was largely because of the money required for paying the bonus that you had to increase the postal rates. Is it not on all fours with the agricultural bonus?
We are not ready at the moment to set up these Conciliation Boards in agriculture. I do not find fault with the Wages Board. I believe it has done its work as well as it possibly could, but the Board is much too big. We want Wages Boards in much smaller areas. I live in one area where the wages are 46s. minimum; but in one portion of the area the lowest rate is 50s., while in another part of the same area men are out of work and are asking to be taken on at 35s. That is in a corn-growing area. We want a Wages Board or Conciliation Board which will deal with smaller areas. I have dealt with farm men for the last 30 years, and have never had any trouble with them. I am a great believer in dealings between man and man, and I have very little confidence in Conciliation Boards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] —but I believe—perhaps hon. Members who have just cheered will not so readily accept what I am about to say—that behind the dealings between man and man you will find that it is necessary to have some compelling force. Time is required for setting up these Boards. You must have time to consider all the different matters. When you deal with the farming interest, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to remember that many of us have spent from £8 to £10 an acre in preparing our land for the harvest of 1922, and we have spent that money under the guarantee and bond that we should be paid.
7.0 P.M.
I do not believe that the Act is going to cost the nation all the money that has been mentioned. I believe that the cost of production is falling. Whether labour may fall is another matter. Labour will no doubt rise, or fall, according to the cost of living. But fertilisers and all we use upon the land is falling, and there is very great evidence that in the near future the cost of producing an acre of wheat will fall, and your liability will fall. If you have to do something, is it not better to carry out your bond? It was stated, when the Bill was introduced, that the urban population of the country required the produce of every ounce of foodstuffs it could get. If this country is going to make any part of the world prosperous, is it not right you should make your own country prosperous and help the working men and industries here, rather than make distant deserts bloom like the rose? Would it not be better to spend the money here in England amongst our own men rather than make Palestine a country fit for Hebrews to live in?
:We have listened to a very serious statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot help thinking that the whole question does revolve on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to us. Looking at it from that point of view, if we are to continue the guarantee on the four years' basis, such as is proposed, undoubtedly we should have to agree in the next year's Budget to increased taxation, and land would have to bear its share. As one farming poor land, one thing I want to see upon poor land is a lightening of taxation. I am one of those who did not vote for the Third Reading of the Act. I did not believe in it. I have always told my agricultural friends that I never believed it would produce a single acre of corn. So far as regards the Act itself, I have never been concerned with it, but I do say, with respect to the present situation—and I think I can speak for the vast majority of farmers—while we all wish to pay the very best wage the industry can afford, we all realise the difficulties at the present time in the case of the poorer land. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill is, I think, too inclined to regard the agriculture of his district as a sample of agriculture throughout the whole length and breadth of the country. The greater part of Lincolnshire is a paradise compared with many counties. I therefore wish very strongly to point out that the rigidity of the Wages Board, under which we are suffering to-day, is undoubtedly causing unemployment in many a village. If we could get something in the shape of conciliation boards, that would be a far better system than this rigid and difficult system under which we are working to-day. In the little villages on the uplands of Kent there are men willing ro work at a lesser figure—not a greatly lesser figure. That is quite well known; there is no concealment about it. The farmers are not going to take them on because they may be fined and may come into the list of those who have been under review and ordered to pay back-wages owing to a breach of the law. That system cannot be good for agriculture as a whole. It is because I want to see something done for agriculture as a whole that, however much I regret the attitude of the Government, I shall be prepared to support them on the Second Reading. Regarding what has been said by the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) I do think it points to this: that the Ministry of Agriculture should very carefully overhaul its estimates. The more we think it out, the more deplorable, it is that within six months of the time the Act was passed we find ourselves in this position, which is very distasteful to any Member on these benches. It arises from the fact that the experts who should have been able to advise the Minister have given this information, which has turned out absolutely and hopelessly wrong.
Only this morning in a market of my own county one noticed the enormous depreciation in the sales. Sheep were selling at £4 which would have been bought a couple of months ago at £6. It will be within the memory of agriculturists that within the last two months, on poor land, sheep and cattle have been the only things which the average farmer was likely to make any profit on. If these things are going on, and we are held to a rigid, hard system of Wages Boards, how can you hope the average farmer will weather the storm? I will do everything I can to support the policy of giving the wage-earner the very best sum the industry can afford, but the system must be elastic. Within a few miles you will find the conditions vary so much that, with the best will in the world, the wage-earner in one district cannot get the same wages as in the other. I can give an instance of farms two miles distant from one another. On one farm on the top of the hill it costs 6s. an acre more to hoe turnips, because of the stones, than it does on the farm below. That is an instance which brings home the difference. You can safely say that whereas in industry under cover the workman goes to work day after day and knows what is to happen, while the farmer for 100 days during the year will never know what to do next day. These are some of the difficulties we have to face, and they are accentuated under a rigid system. It is because I believe in the long run that complete decontrol of agriculture will be better that I will support the Government in the Division Lobby. I want to see nothing said or done which will create mistrust between the three parties in agriculture. Anyone who says that the farmer is going to grind down the agricultural labourer to the position of 1914 is doing a great injustice to the farming community as a whole. There are bad labourers as well as bad farmers, but the vast majority of farmers will welcome anything which will give the labourers better wages and improve the amenities of the district in which they live. We shall have to debate this question very closely in Committee. We have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement bringing out very clearly the difficult financial situation, which must mean increased taxation for the taxpayer unless we deal with the matter in the way he proposes. While I profoundly dislike having to go back on Acts of Parliament passed such a short time ago, I realise the situation and will support the Government.
:I regret extremely that the Government have found it necessary to introduce this Bill and to repeal the Corn Production Acts, and I do so not for the reasons given by many of the previous speakers. Though some Members on the other side of the House have regretted the repeal of these Acts because they do away with the Wages Board, or something of that kind, it is, to my mind, more of a national question. I regret the repeal of these Acts, in the first place, because undoubtedly to people outside this House the repeal of an Act of this kind will mean that they will lose faith in Parliamentary institutions and in what they consider the permanence of Acts of Parliament. Above that, I regret the repeal of these Acts from the nation's point of view, in that I cannot help thinking it is the beginning of a return to our old system of the neglect of agriculture. It is not a question of the industry so much as it is of the nation which is really affected if the country neglects its agriculture.
So far as I remember, when the original Corn Production Act, which was followed by the Agriculture Act, was introduced into this House, we were told it was in the nature of national insurance, and that any sum of money which the taxpayer would be likely to be called upon to pay was in the nature of an insurance; that they would get a very different and more satisfactory country life for the people engaged in the industry and a larger production from the soil. I am very glad that this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able so early in the Debate to tell us what were the real reasons why this Act had to be repealed. It comes to this, that although this was insurance, the needs of the financial position at the present moment are so great that we are unable to pay the premium. Everybody knows that when an individual or nation cannot any longer pay the premium, the insurance lapses. It is deplorable that we should be reduced to that state in this country. I, and those with whom I am associated, have been accused by one Member on the other side of the House of having at the beginning of this Parliament been persistent in our demands upon the Government to introduce at the earliest possible date an agricultural policy. I make no apology whatever for having been presistent in doing that, because necessary as the policy was then it is still more necessary now. It is certainly not necessary that we shauld have a policy if it is brought in one day and changed another. Obviously it is of national importance that we should have a permanent—if anything can be permanent in this world—policy on behalf of the Government in its relation to agriculture. During the last three or four months it has been brought home to the people of this country owing to industrial disputes, and I might almost say the cessation of industries in this country, that a country like this, four-fifths of whose food supplies are imported from overseas, is always in a critical condition.
:Try Protection.
:That being so, when our exports are shown to be declining with alarming rapidity, as they are, the only means by which we can pay for the food which has to be imported into this country, it is all the more necessary to do our utmost to increase food production in this country. Otherwise we become still more dependent on what we have to import from abroad, and, unfortunately, owing to the decline in our exports, are in a worse position to pay for those imports. Therefore we are drifting into a very serious position as regards the stability of this country. I do not want to dwell on that, important as it is, as affecting this question. I would like to say one or two words as regards this Bill. The real substance of this Bill is that it proposes to do away with guaranteed prices and the Wages Board. A great many of us have been accused of asking for guaranteed prices. I have never asked as an agriculturist for guaranteed prices. I took the trouble the other day to look up the report of the remarks which I made on the Committee stage of the Bill on an Amendment dealing with the necessity for doing away with Wages Boards if guaranteed prices were ever abolished, and I said: does not tell you where the money is to come from out of which the minimum wage is to be paid. I cannot understand the reasons given by some hon. Members opposite to show that you can consider the question of leaving Wages Boards even if you do away with guaranteed prices. Their apprehensions as to the possible conditions of agricultural labourers, if Wages Boards are done away with, are extremely exaggerated. I see no reason to think that these gloomy expectations will ever be realised. It is certain if you neglect agriculture in this country as an industry that, whether you have or have not these Boards, if times are bad, the agricultural labourer will be in as bad a state as he was at the end of the last century. The condition of the agricultural labourer does not depend in the least on the Wages Board. It depends on the success of the industry in which he is engaged, and no matter how many Wages Boards you set up, or what minimum wages you choose to impose, they cannot be paid unless the industry is in a position to pay them.
There is no good talking about fixing minimum wages and not considering guaranteed prices. If this country allows its agricultural industry to go back into the state in which it was at the end of the last century, then the agricultural labourer will suffer with all the rest of us who are engaged in the industry. When we consider human nature we realise that the agricultural labourer has been led to believe that all the benefits which he has received during the last few years have been due to the Agricultural Wages Board. The Agricultural Wages Board has, it is true, always made the change in his wages on a rising scale. So it is easy to understand that the agricultural labourer attaches a great deal of importance to Wages Boards. I feel sure that it would necessarily follow in the course of time that Wages Boards, even if they continued to exist, would have to begin to reduce agricultural labourers' wages. If that happened the agricultural labourers would not attach so much importance to the Wages Boards as they do at present.
I appeal to those in this House who represent trade union organisations, especially those who are concerned with agricultural organisations, to use their influence with their members not to induce them to hold out threats of what may happen if Wages Boards are done away with, but to do the best they can to co-operate with employers at fixing the wages at reasonable prices. Then they would be conferring a real benefit not only on industry as a whole, but upon themselves. [ Laughter. ] It is all very well to jeer at these things, but that is the proper way to deal with these wage questions, between organisations of employers and employés. It does not do any good to jeer when we are trying to bring employer and employed together. I ask hon. Members whether it would not be better, in the interest of those whom they represent, to try to persuade them to co-operate with representatives of employed and employers to bring about reasonable wages in the agricultural industry such as the industry can bear. At this moment it is a question of whether we should like to continue this Act or to repeal it. It is a matter of financial necessity. We are unable to continue paying what we should be called upon to pay if this Agriculture Act were retained on the Statute Book. It is not a matter for voting Aye or No. It is a matter of the Government being forced at this moment, seeing the financial position of the country, to repeal this Act from the national point of view. I deplore it, but I think that it is the only thing that can be done by the Government from the economic point of view.
:Like my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain FitzRoy) I deplore the introduction of this Bill, because it marks the abrogation of what I had considered to be a well-thought-out and well-intended policy. Ever since I have been a Member of this House I have been desirous of seeing the Government embark on a vigorous agricultural policy for some of the reasons which have been alluded to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I have frequently made the statement in this House and in the country that any primary consideration was for the agricultural labourer, and I was inspired to do something in this House and in the country to improve his lot. I ultimately came to the conclusion that I could not secure for the agricultural labourer the wages and the proper conditions that I desired for him unless I associated myself with efforts to place agriculture on a sounder and more secure basis than it had previously enjoyed. I was associated in this with other Members of this House, and we subsequently elaborated an agricultural policy. It will be remembered that, as a, result, a Departmental Committee was set up by the late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith), which included my hon. and gallant Friend the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott), a Unionist in politics, I believe, myself, and the hon. E. G. Strutt, of whose politics even now I am not aware. [HON. MEMBERS: "Conservative."] That proves that even among Conservatives there are, after all, some who are progressive. We subsequently elaborated an agricultural policy, which was based on these three considerations: Guaranteed prices, control of our cultivation, and Wages Boards.
For a long time we stood almost alone in our advocacy of the principle of guaranteed prices. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the British farmer is subject to conditions over which he has no control, to which other forms of industry are not subject. There are foreign competition, the elements themselves, and the variety of conditions which obtain in the country, and we ultimately became convinced that, unless we were able to give some guarantee, the wages and general conditions of the agricultural labourers would be in a constant state, of insecurity. I believe that the farmer, very much like other persons, is anxious to do the right thing. I have had experience of him. When I come to consideration of the Wages Board proposal of the Bill, I shall have to make some reservations under that heading. Nevertheless, I became convinced that the farmers were suffering from a sense of insecurity. I believe it is absolutely imperative that we should build up agriculture in this country. I know it is presumptuous to don the prophet's mantle, especially in the House of Commons, but I see the whole development to be along this line: Every nation will avoid the lop-sided policy that we have adopted, and every nation will develop its own agriculture alongside its manufactures.
There is no denying the fact that one of our main causes of weakness and anxiety during the War was attributable to the fact that we had neglected agriculture and had concentrated exclusively on the development of manufactures. While it is true that the Government have laid themselves open to a very heavy liability in the form of these guarantees, let us remember that our neglect of agriculture cost this country hundreds of millions during the War. I remember that at the inquiry to which I have referred we had evidence to the effect that for a comparable quantity of food brought into this country during the first year of the War, contrasted with the year 1913 we paid an additional £85,000,000 in the 12 months. This country cannot realise what it has lost because of its neglect of agriculture, and what it may stand to lose by the adoption of the policy represented by this Bill. I deplore profoundly the going back upon what I had hoped would have been the permanent policy of the Government, and I certainly have no alternative but to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and to offer it such opposition as I can offer later.
I want to refer to the proposal to abandon the Wages Board. It is quite true that since the question of the Government's agricultural policy has emerged into prominence, the guaranteed prices and the Wages Board have continuously been spoken of together. I have never considered that if you abolish guaranteed prices the Wages Board must of necessity go also. In 1912 I had the privilege, acting on behalf of the Labour party, of introducing a Bill providing for the creation of Wages Boards for agriculture. I know that at that time one could have relied on a large measure of support from Members of all parties. I then came to the conclusion that the principle of Wages Boards for agriculture carried the concurrence of every party in the State. I cannot understand why now we are going to discriminate against the agricultural labourer. In respect of the urban workers you still have your Trade Board scheme in existence. It lays you open to the charge that because the agricultural labourers are scattered and immobile you are able to treat them differently from the town population. I understood the policy of the Government in regard to labour to be this—encouragement of joint industrial councils where organisations existed, and where organisation was lacking to cover those industries by a system of Trade Boards.
The proposal of this Bill, to get rid of the Wages Board in agriculture, is a most reactionary step. I cannot understand what pressure has been applied to the Government. I know a number of farmers who have entertained no resentment for the Wages Board. They recognised that, like every other human organisation, it had its failings, but the members of the Board were gradually groping their way to elasticity and adaptability to varying conditions. I recognise the force of some of the criticism advanced against the Board. I believe it has been too rigid and that there has been too much of a tendency to apply conditions which, while suitable to factories, are altogether unsuitable to agriculture. Experience would have overcome those weaknesses, and trade union representatives would learn by experience that you cannot take more out of an industry than is produced within it. If the farmers on the Board would place the facts of the agricultural industry before the trade union representatives, I have no hesitation in saying that when a reduction of wages was proved to be absolutely essential in order that agriculture could be carried on, the trade union representatives would have had the courage to recommend acceptance of the reduction.
Underlying the speeches in support of this Bill there is an unhidden desire for a, reduction of wages. It may be born of recognition of the fact that agriculture, like other industries, may not be able to bear the standard built up during the War. But if the farmers are to be allowed to force these reductions on to the labourers without proper discussion, without a full display of the facts, they will create such an attitude of mind in the agricultural districts as will be not only disastrous to the Government—that is a minor affair—but disastrous to the development of the country as a whole. If reductions in wages are necessary the labourer would the more readily accept them if he was advised by his representatives on the Wages Board that they were absolutely necessary. The Government are making a great mistake in abandoning the Wages Board system. Let us consider the alternative proposal of the Bill—voluntary conciliation boards. I confess that I prefer voluntary to statutory organisations. I prefer trade union negotiation with the employers' organisation to the provisions of a Statute. Therefore I have always been a strong supporter of the recommenda- tions of that Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee which dealt with the relations of employers and employed and was so worthily presided over by our present Speaker. But my experience as Minister of Labour was that even when trades were sufficiently well organised to constitute a preference for the voluntary joint industrial councils, it was still found that there were unwilling employers and unorganised workmen.
I have come to the conclusion that, supplementary to the system of joint industrial councils, you must ultimately grant statutory powers whereby the conclusions of the industrial councils regarding wages and general conditions shall be enforced even on those employers who are outside the organisation and on the workmen who are not in the trade unions. The principle of the legalisation of industrial agreements is now being demanded by joint industrial councils. I often regret that the Trade Union Congress and the Labour party have not pressed this principle earlier. In earlier days we were more frequently swayed by the belief that it was detrimental to a trade union to have recourse to statutory enactments, and we were invariably defeated by a combination of those unions which were powerful enough to control their own industries. I think there is a growing recognition today that one weakness of the system of joint industrial councils is the fact that employers may keep outside employers' organisations and bodies of workmen remain unorganised.
I regret more than I am capable of expressing that this Bill should have been introduced. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is always competent for Parliament to undo what Parliament has done. Nevertheless, it would have been better for the Government to have implemented its undertakings in this regard rather than save the money. I am doubtful whether much money is to be saved. I know how difficult it is to form an accurate idea as to the state of the food supplies of the world. We are still passing through very abnormal circumstances. The present slump in prices, I hold, is not due to the fact that world production has grown, but rather to the fact that world consumption has been much less than was contemplated. When I was at the Ministry of Food it was impossible for us to forecast the future, but when endeavouring to frame our pre- dictions, it certainly never was contemplated that Europe and the world would remain in such a disturbed state for so long. I am still of opinion that in the course of a year or two we shall find out that our neglect of agriculture has been a foolish and a wasteful policy. Whereas we may save a little now, food consumers will have to pay a great deal more in the future, because of the fact that we have not only failed to give encouragement, but have actually discouraged the cultivators at this juncture. They have lost faith in the Government's pledges.
I know they relied on the four years' undertaking. You would never have got the Farmers Union or any collection of farmers to accept a single year's guarantee. It was no use to them, and your four years' notice was based upon a recognition of the general principle of rotation. That was the origin of the four years' notice. The agricultural community, as I say, will now lose all their faith in Government promises, and it would have been much better if this agricultural question had been lifted out of the region of politics altogether. I had hoped when my colleagues and I issued our Minority Report, that this would have been done. It was accepted by the representative organs, even of the Liberal party. My friends of the Labour party concurred in my signing the Report embodying the principle of guaranteed prices, and the "Daily News" passed enconiums on myself and on the other signatories, and said the Government were to be commended if they accepted that policy. We felt then that the agricultural question was being lifted beyond the considerations of party politics. If we could then have gone to our urban population, and proved to them how essential and how helpful would be the development of agriculture in this country, I am sure we should have experienced little difficulty in persuading them to make the temporary sacrifice involved in carrying out the guarantees that were offered to the farmers under the Act of 1917. It was then planned on a permanent basis and the Act of only six months ago made that policy permanent. Farms have been bought and plans have been made, in anticipation of the Government policy being loyally carried out.
This Bill has placed me in perhaps the most embarrassing position I have ever occupied. It is not merely that it places me in opposition to the Government, because that is a minor matter, but in my constituency I have suffered more criticism for my support of the Government's agricultural policy than for anything else I have done. During the last election attacks were concentrated upon it. It is quite true that people who say now that the Corn Production Act should not be repealed were then telling us that they never wanted it, that the Government forced the Wages Board system on to them, that they could have secured higher wages without the Wages Board, and that I was a traitor because I assented to it, or, as I believe has been said, because I was largely responsible for the fixing of the minimum wage at 25s. Looked at to-day, it seems a wrong figure. Nevertheless, in the light of the conditions then, it provided a real guarantee for the agricultural labourer, and I am sorry to see the prospect of its destruction.
:Several remarks have been made during the Debate on the position occupied by the Minister of Agriculture. One hon. Member has spoken of him as wearing the white sheet of penitence, and other such suggestions have been made. I do not for a single moment say that he should be in sackcloth and ashes, because when the Act was introduced he made it perfectly evident to every hon. Member of this House that his sympathies were entirely with agriculture and with all parties interested in agriculture. He tried to keep an even balance and to provide an Act suitable to the requirements of this country. Therefore, instead of suggesting that he should put on sackcloth and ashes, I suggest that he should put on marriage robes. I quite realise the fact that the Minister, in introducing the Agriculture Bill in 1920, was acting as the mouthpiece of the Government and had the approval of the Government for that Measure. I join with hon. Members who have spoken before me in deeply regretting that circumstances have arisen that have made it, in the opinion of the Government, imperative that Part I of the Act should be scrapped. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) that nothing has been done for many years which will so disturb the confidence of the agriculturists of the country as the Measure which we have before us. In passing through my own constituency and other parts of Scotland, I have been asked again and again if I believed the Government would adhere to their pladges and if the Act of 1920 was to be a permanent institution. I endeavoured to reassure the people on that matter, and pointed out some of the statements that had been made. I am not going to quote the OFFICIAL REPORT against the Minister or any of the other speakers who took part in the former Debate, but we all remember the great purpose for which the Act was introduced. It was to give us a settled continuous policy which would allow the agriculturists of the country to go forward with perfect confidence and make their plans for years in advance.
The ordinary man who hears the phrase "rotation of crops" has very little knowledge of what the expression really means. It means that the intelligent agriculturist must make his plans for years ahead, and it is therefore necessary that we should have confidence in agriculture if agriculture is going to provide its best for the nation. When the Bill was introduced, I declared on behalf of Scottish agriculturists that we did not desire guarantees, but when guarantees were included in the Act, and when the Act was passed into the hands of the agricultural community, certain things immediately resulted. Men began to look around and to say, "We now can depend on at least the cost of production being guaranteed in the growing of our crops.' They purchased farms that were for sale, and took lettings of farms that were to let. A land agent in Scotland told me recently that he had had over 80 offers for one farm, and these extended from 100 per cent, increase in rental to 175 per cent, increase. He said he never in his experience had seen such a demand for land. He also said the rentals that were being offered were far too great, and knowing, as he did, what was ahead of us, he was not going to accept the highest offers, but was going to let to men whom he knew to be capable of paying a reasonable rent over a long period of years to come. An hon. Member has asked who suggested the scrapping of the Act? I am quite sure if it had been possible to save the Act, the Minister of Agriculture would have saved it, and so far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, whatever his views may have been on the original Act, I can speak with some knowlege of the management of his estate in Scotland. He is one of the most sympathetic landlords we have in that country. His estate is one of the best managed, and in the days when it was very difficult to make ends meet, and when agriculture was at its lowest ebb, a 25 or 35 per cent. reduction of rent was allowed. There has always existed sympathy 'between proprietors and tenants in connection with that estate, and the desire of the landlord to provide good buildings, not only for his tenant farmers, but for his labourers, has been highly commended. I cannot refrain from saying that.
I am not going to call in question the legality of what we are doing in regard to the four years' guarantee. I am not going to suggest that it is impossible for a Government, supported by the House of Commons, to cancel a Bill which it has passed six months previously. I do say that amongst the agriculturists of the country there was a fixed belief that for at least four years they were secure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer with his magnifiecent legal knowledge can define the position which we occupy, and we accept his definition. But the people in the country were justified because of the discussion in this House, and the statements made in this House, in believing that for at least four years they were perfectly safe. So far as the landlords are concerned, the scrapping of the Act will mean that land will come to less value; that where farms are being let or sold they will be let or sold at less money and where landlords themselves are farming they will suffer as the tenant farmers suffer. So far as the farmers are concerned, consider the position of those who have bought farms at a very high price. In many cases they had not the money to pay for these farms, and had to borrow the money at fairly high rates of interest. The position for them in the near future will be an exceedingly difficult one. Then in Scotland, when we lease land, we generally lease it for 19 years. That means, at the enhanced rentals which have come into being during the last year, tenant farmers will have for 19 years to pay a very high rent, unless they do as the Government does, and suggest the cancellation of the whole business. I congratulate the Min- ister of Agriculture on one aspect of the Bil, that is, the arrangement he has been able to enter into with agriculturists, and the bargain he has made, whereby they accept sums of £3 an acre for wheat and £4 an acre for oats.
8.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, and who suggested what the loss would probably be, under-estimated the sum, as far as I am able to judge. I suggest that the loss on oats will be very much greater than he indicated. However, it is never safe to prophesy. Many of us who took part in the discussion on the Bill in 1920 were under the impression that prices would not fall for a number of years. It is all very well for people to theorise, and to say after the event, "I told you so," but as one who has had to make his living out of agriculture and dealing in agricultural produce, and who is fairly able to foretell the future, I must confess the drop in prices during the last year or eighteen months has been a great surprise and a great disappointment to me. In this country three things are necessary, first cheap food, second cheap clothes, and third cheap raw material, and those of us engaged in agriculture must do our best to secure cheap food. If the suggestion occasionally made to-night holds good, that we are going to take from the agricultural labourer the wages to which he is justly due and offer that as a contribution towards providing cheap food I, for one, will dissent from that proposition with every bit of my being.
On the question of Wages Boards, we in Scotland are in a very different position from English agriculturists, and I repeat what I said during the passage of the Agricultural Bill, that there ought to have been separate Bills for England and Scotland, because the conditions are very different, particularly in respect to Wages Boards. In Scotland we have had what some people would call Whitley boards and others conciliation boards. The two words are practically synonymous, I think. We are more indebted to our present Speaker for the introduction of those boards than many people are aware of. In Scotland we established those boards in agriculture in 1913–14. They are not universal in Scotland, but there are a number of them. They have wrought admirably, and the Wages Boards do not come into conflict with them, because the minimum wage fixed by the Wages Board does not approach the wages arranged by the conciliation board. The wages agreed to by mutual arrangement are much greater, and the spirit shown is most desirable. Not only do they discuss wages, but the spirit of agriculture and the agriculturist is sweetened, and the intimate intercourse between farmers and workers is all helpful. In Scotland, therefore, we have the machinery to set up conciliation boards immediately. We have got one of the best organised unions to be found anywhere—the National Scottish Farm Servants' Union. It embraces every county in Scotland. The same remark applies to the Scottish National Farmers' Union on the other side. We have the possibility of bringing into being at the earliest possible moment the very conciliation boards that are considered to be so desirable. I am not going to discuss the problem of whether Wages Boards or conciliation boards are the better. If you can get the right spirit into the conciliation boards, the mutual understanding that should exist between the parties, then, in my opinion, the conciliation boards might be the better.
The objection has been raised that a farmer here and there would not bow to the decision of the conciliation board. All I want to say is, I would not like to be that farmer. If a man wants to succeed as an agriculturist he will engage the best possible workers he can at the highest possible wage. The men who succeed in agriculture are those who pay the best wages and those who want to have their employés working not only for them but with them, with mutual understanding and mutual interest between the two. If there is anybody in this House who says, "You favour conciliation board rather than the other boards because you do not want statutory powers introduced," I say there is not a man on the Labour Benches who has more sympathy with labour than the speaker at the present moment. I have been not only employer but employé, I know the work from beginning to end, and I have come into contact with men who work, and work well. Speaking of the result of the War, suggestions have been made that bricklayers do not lay so many bricks, that coal-cutters do not get so many tons of coal, and that others do not do so much work; but it is the recognised opinion of the best informed agriculturists of Scotland, that whoever else may have failed, agricultural labourers have not failed. They have put heart and soul into the work, they have done work that has produced results they need not be ashamed of, and that are a credit to the class they belong to, and my constant endeavour is to help that class to make their position better and to get their feet on the bottom rung of the ladder and climb upwards until they become employers and engage in cultivating large areas of the soil. Only a few hours ago I was talking to the president of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland. He is a man who farms a large area of land near Glasgow. The average wages he paid last year were 60s. per week, plus what we call perquisites, which would amount to at least £l per week and possibly more, because I do not know the exact perquisites in that part of the country. He was paying, in all, £4 a week. Recently wages have been reduced, in his case by 5s. per week. The men there work exceedingly hard. They are the best paid men, possibly, in the country and they deserve to be well paid, for they are worthy of their hire. That farmer told me he was in entire sympathy with conciliation boards being introduced, and that the sooner they were introduced the better for all concerned. Take the other side. My Friend Mr. Duncan is the Secretary of the Farm Servants' Union. I consider it an honour to call him my friend; he has a broad outlook, ho is a statesman, he has vision not only of the present, but of the future, his great desire being that those associated with him in the industry should make progress, that they should be well educated, well employed and well recompensed for their labour. What is his view about this: matter? He is not crying about the Agriculture Act being scrapped. He is not sorry about the Wages Board going. He prefers his union, he says; it is strong enough to look after the interests of his men. If I have misrepresented him in any way I should be sorry for it, as I do not want to make statements stronger than I am warranted in making, but as I understand the position of farmers and farm servants in Scotland, they can arrange conciliation or Whitley Boards that will carry out the desire of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts), who for many years has endeavoured to better the position of agricultural labourers in England. Then we have in Scotland another thing that makes the Wages Boards difficult. Our engagements are never for less than six months, and very often for twelve months. It may be that my friends above the Gangway think that ie a bad thing for labour, and that if there were weekly wages and weekly engagements the men could secure their position better. But the weather conditions in Scotland are such that in my opinion it is better for the men to have twelve months' certain engagements. I recall one winter when snow set in in the middle of November, and not a single bit of outside farm work in the way of ploughing was possible until near the end of March; but all the men on the farm continued to enjoy their salaries and their perquisites and everything else. They were practically doing nothing, but their engagements continued. You may have long periods when a master would say, "I can dispense with your service for two or three weeks or a month or so." Nothing of that kind takes place under the present arrangement, and although on the face of it it may seem a hardship to make a long engagement, I am perfectly convinced, as the son of a farm labourer, and one who has laboured on a farm, that the long engagement is the best in the interests of the class I have sprung from so far as Scotland is concerned. One thing I wish to make clear is that if I thought the result of these conciliation boards or Whitley Boards would be a diminution of the wages or salaries of the workers I would protest against them with all my heart. The irregularity of conditions has been pointed out. If you have irregularity in England we have much more irregularity in Scotland. You can have no county area there. There must be a much smaller area than that.
What are we going to do this evening in reference to this Bill? Are we to support it or are we to vote against it? When the Agriculture Bill was passing through this House we had a long and protracted struggle. The Minister endeavoured to hold an even balance between the parties. Sometimes we thought that we who were fighting for the interests of the farmer and the farm servant were having hard times, and I assume that the hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes thought they were having a bad time because we were getting into the Bill certain conditions they rather disapproved of. Then the Bill went to another place, where it was mutilated almost beyond description. I remember the Secretary for Scotland making a short speech at an unseemly hour, when he spoke with great feeling, and I wish he had just put the thoughts of his heart into execution, and instead of using words, had gone in for action, and that he had resolved there and then to have done with the Bill.
If the Bill had never come into being, we would not have had the difficult position which we occupy to-night, and it would have saved the credit of the Minister and of the Government, and agriculturists would have had far more confidence in the future than they will have after to-night's Division. I would like to ask those who are opposed wholeheartedly to this Bill if they really desire the guaranteed prices to continue. If I understand the position, almost every Member of this House has been shouting out against subsidies and endeavouring to do away with them for several months past. When the argument began to be used about the coal industry that subsidies must cease and that in all other industries subsidies must cease, I confess frankly that I was in a dilemma, because I could not see how we could maintain that agriculture was entitled to a subsidy if all the other industries were denied subsidies. It is quite true that the form in which the subsidy is given is the least objectionable of all the methods that could be used to ensure the future of agriculture, but possibly in this hour of dire need we had better revise our thoughts, and, as the farmers in Scotland say, "Well, well, we thought you were doing well for us; now we think you have scrapped us, but, after all, it does not matter so much; in the time of the national necessity we are ready to bow to the inevitable." Although it could be argued, and possibly well argued, that the spending of £20,000,000 might be a good investment—and again I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich that next year the liability of the Government would be much less than this year, as the cost of production will be so much decreased—if the £20,000,000 was causing such production in this country that it would save the importation of £100,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, it might be well worth the consideration of the Government and this House. At any rate, I am not going to vote against the Minister or against the Bill, and whether I vote for the Bill or not depends on some of the speeches that will be made later this evening.
:I do not want to repeat arguments already used, but there is one thing I am afraid almost every speaker has said, and that is to express very great regret at the position in which the Government have put the House and themselves by their absence of foresight when the Agriculture Act was passed last Session. We have heard nothing of any responsibility being attached to that The reason why this Bill is brought in is that there was gross miscalculation on the part of the advisers of the Government during last Session. Something ought to be done to improve the Intelligence Department of the Ministry. We have not heard of anybody being hanged yet, but I hope we shall hear that something has been done to improve the Intelligence Department, and thus avoid putting the Government and the House into such a very unpleasant position. Far be it from me to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should retire into private life —nobody would regret it more than I should. , The Noble Lord who is responsible for the policy of the Agriculture Act has gone very far from the land, because he has gone to sea—to the Admiralty. It would be only reasonable if some indication could be given that mistakes of this sort are not likely to happen again, at any rate, in such a very violent and regrettable form.
There is general agreement in the House on two points. We practically all agree that the country cannot afford to pay the guarantees to which it would be liable under the Agriculture Act. We also agree that none of us want to see the labourer let down. A great deal has been said about a breach of faith. Obviously this is not a statutory bargain, but the policy of introducing this Bill represents the direct scrapping of what was intended to be, and thought to be, a definite policy, and it also embodies what is bound to create a profound sense of mistrust, in the future, of all Governments, particularly of our present Prime Minister, for the want of continuance of a policy in support of agriculture which has been so frequently promised. All that is most regrettable, but, after all, to do what some hon. Members have suggested, namely, to do away with the guarantees and to keep control and all the rest would be a far-greater breach of contract. I do not think it has been said yet that the guarantee to the farmer is not a guarantee of profit but only a guarantee against serious loss. These figures of £20,000,000 per annum or more, for which we are told we should be liable under the Agriculture Act, represent what is required to save the farmer from direct and serious loss. By taking away those guarantees you are putting £20,000,000 or more per annum of serious loss on the farmer, and it is certainly obvious that their position cannot be met without some change in the amount of wages they can afford to pay to those-whom they employ.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. R. Smith) made a parallel of the action of the miners if they repudiated the agreement which has recently been come to, but that is an entirely incorrect analogy, because that would mean that they were doing something for their own-benefit and no one can say the Government are doing this for their own benefit. It will probably be the least to their benefit of anything they have done this Session. They are doing it for the benefit of the taxpayer, because the liability upon the taxpayer is too heavy. I myself hate being put in the position of having to scrap a Bill which was so recently passed, but personally I have always voted whenever I could against control. I pledged' myself to my constituents to do away with control whenever I got the opportunity, I helped to defeat the Government in Committee on control, I did my best to-defeat them on Report on control, and I cannot possibly vote against a Bill which is removing control from the Agriculture-Act. Therefore, I cannot consistently vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Further than that, there is the obvious reason, which has been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this evening, that the financial position of the country will not stand it, and no man can advocate voting against this Bill, or can vote against this Bill, unless he is prepared to shoulder the responsibility of being prepared to find money at the rate-of £25,000,000 or more per annum to pay-the guarantees which this Bill is to do away with. If anybody is prepared to vote for that money and consistently defend giving these guarantees in the financial circumstances which have been put before us, then he has a right to vote against this Bill, but not otherwise. That must be very clear and obvious to anybody who proposes to take that action.
I do not want—we none of us want— to see the labourer let down. He ought to have his half-holiday. That is a thing, and others, that we must safeguard. Personally, however, I have confidence in the farmer in these matters, and I believe if you can get a representative body that will lay down standard wages, etc., a body that will command respect, the vast majority of the farmers will loyally and honestly endeavour to carry out its suggestions. If they do not, then this House can subsequently intervene with compulsory Clauses. I do, however, want to see these things arranged without the help of the bureaucracy. I do not want to attack the bureaucracy, but the inferior results achieved by them have been admitted by several speakers. What we do want is that the men working in the industry should get together and settle their affairs themselves. It is admitted that we cannot return to the old state of affairs, and I believe if the farmers are given a chance and they have set before them a standard they will endeavour to follow it. I believe we shall get a much more satisfactory result for the benefit generally of agriculture by friendly talk and counsel.
:When I entered the House this afternoon and listened to the closing sentences of the Minister of Agriculture, in introducing this Bill for Second Heading, I was greatly surprised at what I heard. Much has been said of the opposition of the Labour party to the 1920 Act. I challenge anyone to come forward and say that I, as the direct representative of the agricultural labourers in this House, said one word or gave one vote against the Bill when it was passing through this House. On the contrary, I supported the Government all through the Debates, because I believed, and I believe now, that it was an honest attempt on the part of the Government to put this one great and important industry on a sure foundation, and I believed that the Act would encourage the tenant farmer to cultivate his land better and introduce more capital, that he would employ more labour, and in . consequence of this, prosperity could not fail to be brought to this great industry. I supported the Bill then because I believed I was going to see the accomplishment of much that I had advocated for over 50 years on behalf of the labourers. This industry-had been a sweated industry, and its workers had been the worse treated, the worse paid and the worse housed of any class in the country. For over 50 years I had been struggling to try to get this class organised, and I believed this was one step towards dealing with that sweated industry, that it would alter their position by Act of Parliament, that it would give the labourer some assurance that he would in the future have a living-wage. What am I to say to-day? I want to use Parliamentary language, and I hope Mr. Deputy-Speaker will call me to Order if I transgress, but this is the basest betrayal any Government ever committed on any class—
:That is very mild language.
:That is the strongest I can use. What reason has the Minister given us? First, he tells us that the country cannot afford it. Why did he not know that last December? If in December, 1920, the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government could assure this House, as the Minister did, that he could not see it would entail a burden upon this country, how is it that after six months we are told the country cannot afford it? Note the great importance the Minister attached to this matter. He fought two elections in it. He-fought Taunton. He told the agricultural labourers in Taunton what the Coalition Government had done for them. He told the farmers what the Government had done for them, and also what it had done for agriculture. In order to back up these words as to what the Government had done, what wonderful things it had achieved for the agricultural labourer, he thought it necessary to reprint a speech of mine in this House. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that now? If this Act has done something for agriculture and for the labourer, why is the Minister now, within six months, going to upset it? I do-not believe the Government when they brought in this Bill had any knowledge that they would be called upon to pay £19,000,000 to the farmer. I have not heard figures quoted or evidence given that the price of wheat would be so reduced that there would be a necessity for any guarantee being paid. In fact, the price of wheat is going up. In any case the labourer is paying a penny more for his loaf. That, then, is one of the reasons given, that the country cannot afford it.
When the Railway Bill was brought in, and when we were considering the Supplementary Estimate, we never heard anything about the country not being able to find £60,000,000. We heard no objections then from the directors of railways, but the supporters of the Government went trooping into the Lobby and they voted for that £60,000,000. I think hon. Members will not deny that I am interested in agriculture, and I would not say or do anything that could be taken as being detrimental to that great industry. I know that the wealth of the nation depends largely upon that industry, but I want to tell the House that the present action of the Government is going to ruin agriculture, and it is going to ruin many of our farmers. There has been a good deal of land gambling lately, and to my mind that is worse than horse, racing, because you are gambling with God's earth. A great many tenant farmers have had their farms sold over their heads. In a good many cases the land gamblers have run the land up to a prohibitive price, and many tenant farmers, on the strength of these guarantees, have bought their farms with borrowed money, and now all of a sudden the guarantees are to be abolished, and those farmers will find that they are unable to carry on their business, and they will find this the greatest industrial trial they have ever had.
In these matters the Wages Board have not done their duty. Can the Minister of Agriculture bring forward one solitary Order made by the Wages Board which says to the agricultural labourer, "You shall only work so many hours"? I would like him to bring forward any such evidence. The Wages Board, however, did create a new hope in the breast of the workers, for it gave them a little more time for health and recreation. It did say that the ordinary working hours should be 48, and 50 in the summer time, but it did not say that they should not work more hours. It did not abolish overtime, and by a mutual arrangement with their employers they can work as long as they liked. They have not fixed the hours of labour. With regard to wages, the speakers in this Debate have said, "Oh, we sympathise with the labourer.'' In my opinion, one ounce of practical work is worth a ton of sympathy. They say, "We have great sympathy with the agricultural labourer, and we have no desire to see him go back to the conditions of pre-War days." But actions speak louder than words. You are now proposing to repeal a Bill within six months after it was passed, and this Measure will inflict great hardship. Do you want us to do what the miners have done? You say that you believe the labourer would be more patriotic and would not strike. Who is the most patriotic labourer, the man who is going to put his back against the wall and say, "Never, so far as I am concerned, shall you drive my wife and children back to the position in which my father was," or the man who will cringe and accept any conditions? The man who will stand for his wife and children is a thousand times more patriotic than those who go and talk in the way some of them do on the platform.
I want to warn the Government on this matter I am with the labourers in this struggle, whatever course they may take. Heaven forbid that I should be called upon to lead the labourers and give them advice in open revolt against the great and terrible injustice that is about to be inflicted upon them under this Bill. Were I to appeal to the sympathy of hon. Members I could harrow their feelings by describing the conditions through which I have myself passed, and which I look forward to with dread should they take place again in the future. I could describe the pallid face and the sunken eyes of the labourer's wife, struggling along and seeing her children starve. I want to tell hon. Members that in consequence of the conditions which prevailed in pre-War days, many graveyards have grown fat with the bodies of labourers' wives who, under other conditions, would have been alive to-day. Do you want this to come back again? Is there anyone present who will say. he does? I do not think so. I am sure no hon. Member wants to see economic law carried to that extent. All I can say is you are running the risk of doing it. If the Government policy is insisted upon the only alternative for the labourer will be that he will have to strike.
I oppose, for all I am worth, the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a violation of the pledged word of the Government. When the right hon. Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Acland) was addressing the House, and was speaking about Parliament honouring its word, I heard someone actually reply that it was not a case of honouring the word of Parliament. That argument might have held good if the present Government had resigned and another one had come into power, and had upset what this Parliament had done, but I maintain that the Government is as guilty of dishonesty and of dishonouring its word in pursuing this course as would be a man who entered into a private agreement and broke it. If the Government had been honest they would have resigned before taking this step. I am sorry I have to talk so strongly, but there is an old saying that no one knows where the shoe pinches so well as he who wears it. I know what my class have gone through. I know what we have done by organisation. For thirty years we have been knocking at the door of St. Stephen's asking to be brought under the Trade Boards Act. If the Government persist in this policy I see great danger of our industry being again thrown into a state of chaos. You cannot have chaos without ruin, and I therefore do appeal to the Government, even at this eleventh hour, to withdraw this Bill and to let the present Act run its full course. If they will do that they will earn the gratitude of the agricultural labourers of this country, but if they persist in pressing the Bill I will not only go into the Lobby against the Second Reading, but I will also go on to public platforms in the country to denounce their treacherous conduct.
:The hon. Member who has just sat down has delivered a very eloquent speech, and I fully recognise that his close and honourable connection for many years with agriculture entitles his observations to serious consideration by this House. I join with other hon. Members in deploring the necessity for repealing an Act passed only a few months ago. Undoubtedly, if a Government repeals an Act passed but six months previously, it is not only a sign of weakness, but it is conduct which has a bad effect, not only upon the industry with which the Act deals, but upon its own influence and on the influence of Parliament. As a Scottish Member, I am bound to consider the exceptional position in which Scotland stands in face of this sudden change of policy. I recognise that in many parts of Scotland, in the upland districts, oats were sown in the spring on the strength of this Act, and the farmers, by its repeal, will be exposed to considerable loss. Again, in view of the system of farming which prevails in Scotland the repeal of the Act may also have serious effects. But after all we have to consider this matter in the light of national finance. During the War we had to take many new steps to meet ever-recurring emergencies, and we had to go along a non-party path. So, too, in the task of settling peace we have again to meet new emergencies which are constantly arising, and as a practical people we must take into consideration the position as it actually exists. Doing that we are bound to recognise that economy is one of the main needs of this country at the present moment. The financial stability of Great Britain is the foundation stone, not only of progress, but of the prosperity of all countries, and to take any step calculated to endanger the financial prosperity of this country would be fatal indeed.
So much for the national financial position. I look at this matter, however, from the point of view of the agricultural industry. I have always had a connection with that industry, and have always said that anything we can do to add to its prosperity is a wise step for us to take. We want to build up the prosperity of the industry, so that all those engaged in it, whether farmers or labourers, may get a proper and fair share of the benefits from it. When we are told that this subsidy is the main thing that is going to benefit the labourers, I cannot but think that that is a very partial and shortsighted point of view. To begin with, it is to be remembered that the subsidy provided by the recently passed Act only applied to wheat and oats. Farmers engaged in producing, say, milk, cheese or butter, sheep farmers, or farmers growing barley, would get nothing, and therefore the labourers engaged in those very hard sections of the industry would get nothing out of the Act. This guarantee which has been so eloquently pressed is a very partial one, and not one which could ever serve as a permanent and complete protection for the industry. Undoubtedly my hon. Friend was led away in thinking that the Wage Boards could do a great deal for the labourers. We have seen wages raised and conditions of labour improved, but that was not so much owing to the bringing in of Wage Boards as to the high prices of produce caused by the War. That period has gone, and, whether you have Wage Boards or not, you are bound to have a reduction in those bettered conditions which the labourer got owing to high war prices. Whether you have Wage Boards or whether you have economic law, you are bound to have a reduction, because prices are coming down.
Instead of looking to that partial mode of protection in the form of a partial subsidy, are there not other methods which will enable the industry to look after the labourer as well as the other classes in the industry? In the past we have been too neglectful of influences which were prejudicial to the agricultural industry. My hon. Friends opposite may not think that there is much in what I am saying, and may wonder what I am referring to. Let me mention the question of local rates. We know how the land pays an undue proportion of the local rates of this country. For instance, the education rate is largely paid by those who work on the land. Why is it fair that a man who works on the land should pay more towards education in proportion to his income than a man who has the same income and is, perhaps, a banker, a lawyer, or a doctor? We have in operation a system of unfair local rating which tends to hurt the agricultural industry, and thereby to inflict hardship upon the agricultural labourer. In other directions we see where the industry might be helped. In the case of railway rates, we know how in the past foreign produce has been carried at a lower rate per ton per mile than home produce. That, again, was a harmful thing which was bound to be reflected upon the labourers. Our home produce may have to compete with foreign produce, and we do not object to that, but we do object to the foreign produce being sold in the shops and palmed off on the public as home produce. That, again, has been the cause of an immense amount of harm to the prosperity of the industry.
9.0 P.M.
I am sure that, if all these questions are taken up, we shall find the weak spots in the industry, and that it will flourish better than by maintaining an artificial method of partial protection. Subsidies, after all, are entirely artificial. When applied to any industry they make it resemble a hothouse plant, or a plant growing under one of those glass covers which are used in gardens, where you have a heated, artificial atmosphere, which perhaps makes the plant look vigorous and enables it to grow as otherwise it would not, but which is still artificial. I think that that is bad for the industry. I entirely join with my hon. Friend who gave such a moving picture of the condition of the agricultural labourer in past years. Undoubtedly agricultural wages were far too low. I know that they were lower in England than in Scotland, but all over the country they were far too low. Instead of perpetuating an untried method of partial subsidy, we ought to realise that the agricultural industry is the mainstay of this country, and that, no matter what party is in power, it is right that we should all try to take off the burdens which press upon the industry, and thereby allow all sections of the community to benefit.
Whether we have wage boards or not, no higher wage can be got from the industry than it can stand. That is an absolute truism, and, therefore, all that we have to see to is that there is an equitable distribution of the profits. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to ask that there should be some protection in that direction. I think that sound practical benefits will come from the institution and operation of conciliation boards, and therefore I welcome the remark of the Minister that he hopes to see established conciliation boards which will not only remove causes of discord between the farmer and the labourer, but will also lead to an equitable and fair distribution among the different classes engaged in the industry of the profits to be got from it. As I have said, I do not like the idea of repealing an Act which was only passed seven months ago, but I think that in the circumstances, and with the co-operation of all classes in the community, in order to build up a prosperous agriculture, the energy of our people, whether farmers or farm workers, is such that a successful industry can be built up if only there is fair play in these directions to which I have referred, and, perhaps, in other directions also, and that thereby we can do something to improve the lot of the farm worker, which my hon. Friend has spent his life in trying to do.
:The Minister of Agriculture in introducing the Bill suggested that the Agriculture Act was a War Measure. He cannot shelter himself under that plea. It was only passed on 20th December last—two years after the Armistice. It was the considered policy of the Government, and to my mind that policy was right. But I quarrel, and I always have quarrelled, with the details of the Measure. I did not hesitate to express my opinion at all stages of the Bill that it would fail. I said so, and I am not at all surprised that it has. I will ask the House to consider what are the reasons of its failure. First of all, it introduced the spirit of compulsion—of compelling the farmer to carry on his industry under the control of the county councils, backed up by the police court. Such a system was absolutely certain to fail. It never succeeded. I was a member of the Agricultural Commission which sat for weeks and heard a good deal of evidence about all this kind of thing. I reported, and I am certain I was right, that we might just as well try to compel workmen to work by going to the police court as try to compel the farmer to carry on his business by means of the police court. That made the Bill entirely unpopular as its terms began to be understood. The second reason for its failure was the administration and the constitution of the Wages Board. When Lord Ernie introduced the Corn Production Act and inserted into it the Wages Board, it was his intention that the Wages Board policy should be carried out by the District Wages Board, and that in particular districts, where there was a special class of farming, the farmers' representatives and the men's representatives should meet together and settle a real minimum wage —not a maximum—below which no man should work. If that policy had been carried out the Wages Board would have succeeded. I charge hon. Members opposite with the failure of the Wages Board, and to that extent the failure of the Government policy. The leaders of the trade unions, instead of allowing the District Wages Board to work in this particular way, paying attention to all the differences in the locality, the nature of the land, and the local conditions, attempted to foist upon the agricultural industry what they have succeeded in putting on to the Post Office and the railways —practically a flat rate of wages. They seized control of the Wages Board and reduced it to a mere nonentity. They paid no attention to the recommendations, and they carried out their policy of what is virtually a flat rate. It is the flat rate of wages that has brought the Post Office and the railways to bankruptcy. It is the flat rate of wages which has caused the position in which the Government find themselves with regard to the Act.
I do not entirely blame hon. Members opposite. It is partly due to the constitution of the Wages Board, and I should like the House to understand how it is composed. There are 16 representatives of the farmers and 16 of the men, entirely non-elective—there is hardly a man in the House who could mention their names to-day—and seven representatives of the public, entirely non-representative too, and I do not think anyone could mention their names either. Prior to the Agriculture Bill they worked under the Corn Production Act, 1917. This body meets under totally different conditions from those under which a conciliation board or a trade disputes body between employers and employed meet, because in those cases the ultimate loss to the industry has to be paid out of the industry. Under the Corn Production Act it was paid by the consumer. Under Part I of the Agriculture Act it was paid by the taxpayer. We have had an illustration of what happens when public money or a subsidy is going even in the last few weeks. As far as I can understand the only point on which miners and mine owners could be got to agree was the necessity for £10,000,000 of public money. When they have got the taxpayer at the back how do you think a Wages Board like that is going to decide what the proper wages are to be. Wages were the main consideration to be taken into account in arriving at what the guaranteed price was to be. The action of the Wages Board in carrying out the policy the Labour party have adopted in forcing a flat rate and the constitution of the Wages Board, which was rotten in itself, are the prime causes on which I differ from this Bill and the Government policy that supported it. The third weak point is that they adopted a system of fixing a guarantee which was perfectly impracticable, but the Ministry took very good care that the House of Commons never had a chance of discussing it. I tried, both in Committee and on the Report stage, to have another and more practicable system of fixing the guarantee, but we were ruled out of Order and allowed to have nothing but what the Ministry themselves brought in. I charge the Ministry of Agriculture with being the source of the whole failure of the Act.
:You said that we were the sole cause of the failure.
:I charge the Labour party with the working of the Wages Board set up by it, and I charge the Minister of Agriculture with putting into the Act of Parliament an impossible system of fixing the guaranteed prices. The only chance of enforcing the Act was that you should have had a system of fixed wages and a system of guaranteed prices which responded quickly to any change in the market, or any change of conditions, so that we should not have what we have now, an enormous difference under the guarantee which the nation is called upon to pay. Anyone with any foresight would have foreseen that this subsidy to keep up the wages of the agricultural worker and for keeping our land in cultivation, and for no other reason, must be kept within moderate limits, otherwise the townsmen on whom the burden falls would not pay it. That is the reason why we have this difficulty now. If we do without it, what is the position? The Government now change their policy and come to the House and ask us to sweep the whole thing away, to let agriculture stand by itself on its own resources, to give it no guarantee, and to get rid of the Wages Board. That is a hopelessly wrong line line to take. They have failed because they have mismanaged the details of the Act. They have failed to provide a workable Wages Board or a proper system of calculating the guarantee. I should have been only too glad if I could have supported this Bill. The history of agriculture in this country from 1854 to 1879 was one of great prosperity. We had rising prices, and we had grass being ploughed up and being turned into arable land because it was profitable to do so. From 1879 until 1894 we had a terribly bad time in agriculture. The reason why wages in agriculture were bad was because there was no money in the industry to pay wages. Wages were the last thing that went down in the very bad times. Farmers were ruined and land went out of cultivation.
:I differ from the hon. Member, and I am speaking as one who has lived in agriculture all my life. Wages went down first, and always have done so.
:I have lived in and have taken part in the industry for thirty years, and I have seen a whole district sold up. I have seen yeoman farmers sold up, the owners of the land have disappeared, the tenants have disappeared. That was from 1879 to 1894. I have sold wheat at 19s. a quarter. It was not a question of the farmers not wanting to pay the wages, but it was because the money in the industry was not there with which to pay wages, and that was because of the flooding of this country with agricultural products from every country in the world. Every product on the farm now, except milk, is imported from abroad the same as before. I have seen these cycles of agricultural depression going on ever since 1879. On the Agricultural Commission, after hearing all the evidence, I came to the conclusion that were we to sweep away the Wages Board, which we did not anticipate was possible at that time, and to sweep away the guaranteed prices and go back to where we were before, the same thing would inevitably happen that happened before, namely, that by the influx of agricultural products into this country the profits would disappear first, the wages would go down next—
:First.
:The wages would go down next, the land would go out of cultivation, and much of it would become derelict. That is the position which prevailed from 1879 to 1894, therefore, there is no reason for doubting that the same thing will happen in the future as in the past, unless some steps are taken to pre- vent it. The steps that were taken were the Corn Production Act, which was to fix wages and give guaranteed prices. The Commission had to consider whether that should be continued or what was to be done. Not a single witness was called before the Commission, although they were asked for, to say that the wages fixed by the Wages Board could be paid without a guarantee. Let the House remember that wages are fixed quite independently of the cost of production in which the men are engaged, and that is a great defect in the setting up of the Wages Board. There was not a single witness called to say that, from the economic point of view the guarantees could be dispensed with. Not a single witness was called to say how any other security could be given to the farmer except by the guarantee. I weighed the evidence as well as I could, and, if the Government's action is persisted in and the Wages Board and the guaranteed prices are swept away, I can see no reason to doubt that in a time, I cannot say how long, we shall go back to the bad old times, when wages will fall, of necessity, farmers will disappear, and land will go out of cultivation. For this reason I cannot support this Bill. If the Government had only held out some prospect or some hope that they would revise the system of the Wages Board and bring it more into consonance with the feelings in agricultural circles, so that it would respond to the feelings of the different districts, that it might be worked amicably between masters and men, and that they would bring in some system—I do not suggest that my proposal is perfect— by which the guaranteed price should vary according to wages and wages only; some simple system by which the wages and the guarantee might vary quickly and easily so that there should not be the huge gap which the Government is called upon to meet, I would gladly support their proposals.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that next year, if the present Act of Parliament continued, that is, Part I of the Agriculture Act, there would be a liability on the State of a possible £35,000,000. I do not believe it, but I will assume that it is true. What docs it mean? If there is that liability, what is it? It is a liability to make good the extra cost of production that the men engaged in the industry of agriculture are incurring over and above what they are going to receive for the goods that. they are producing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anything like accurate, there is a sum of £35,000,000 to be found next year by the men who are engaged in agriculture, namely, the farming class. How is it to be done? What does it mean? What does it mean to their profits and to the men they employ? The very reason he has given for bringing in this Bill and withdrawing Part I of the Agriculture Act is the very strongest ground he could have urged for altering the system of a Wages Board and guarantees and for doing something to preserve the wages of our men in agriculture and the position of the farmers themselves.
:I do not often intervene in agricultural Debates in this House, but, as I am closely connected with land as a landowner and farmer, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments. I have no serious quarrel with the Government for dropping the guaranteed prices. It is true that they have committed a breach of faith, but, on the other hand, I do not really think farmers could seriously have expected the overburdened taxpayer to continue finding great sums of money for their benefit. Personally speaking, I am rather relieved that we have been taken out of this invidious position of receiving into our own pockets large sum from the taxpayers. It is very often forgotten that on a very large proportion of the land of this country the business of corn growing is entirely subsidiary to the business of milk and beef production. We are often apt to forget the great possibilities there are of extending the production of meat and milk, and that there are portions of the Kingdom which are not almost exclusively devoted to corn growing. As one who lives in the north-west of England, I have always been rather jealous that the policy of the Government has been so largely dictated by those who live in the eastern counties. It was a popular cry that it was absolutely necessary for the regeneration of agriculture to give security to the farmer. I really have never been much impressed with that argument. I have never really felt that the farmer could possibly expect security, if there is such a thing as security in this world. What can give security to the farmer against the incompetence and extravagance of his Government; what can give security to the farmer against breach of faith by his Government; who can bind any Government to follow the policy of its predecessor and who can give security to the farmer against being shrivelled up by drought one year or being drowned out of his farm the next? The best security a farmer can get from his Government is the security of lower taxation. I saw the other day an interesting lecture on the finance of this country in which it was calculated that those who are producing in this country are, in every 12 months, producing for four months to meet the demands of the Government. We hear a great deal about forced labour in Bolshevik Russia. It comes to this, that the farmers of this country are producing for four months in every year, not for themselves but to meet the demands of the Government. That seems a near return to the days of serfdom. It is very difficult to condemn the Government for saving the money of the taxpayer, and the best way to save the farmer is to enable him to work a few more days of the week for himself and not for the Government.
I make an earnest appeal to the Government not to drop the Wages Board. I feel most strongly that this is a reactionary and deplorable attempt to put the clock back to the bad old days when the individual labourer was at the mercy of the individual farmer. I know that hon. Members opposite dislike intensely State Regulations, but can they deny that the Wages Board has had a conciliatory effect upon agriculture generally, and that there has been a remarkable absence of strife and contention since it was brought in? The Minister said that to set up Conciliation Boards would lead to a policy of conciliation rather than coercion. I differ from him entirely. I believe that the abolition of the Wages Board will open up an era of strife, bickering, strikes, and locks-out. If good will be a necessity for the larger production of food, then the policy of the Government stands condemned. The chief fault we have to find with the Government is that they do not appreciate how very necessary it is for the recuperation and regeneration of industry generally that there should be peace and good will. They do not really appreciate how they themselves can contribute to that peace and good will. I know that individual Members of the Government are most peaceful and amiable men, but some malign influence causes them, when they act collectively, to pursue a peaceful policy in a warlike manner. Somehow, instead of promoting good will and peace in the industrial world, they have in the mining industry, and now in the industry of agriculture, adopted the methods of trench warfare and of massed attack.
What must have struck most Members is the utter inadequacy of the reasons for the abolition of the Wages Board. Is it contended that the wages fixed by the Board have soared beyond the rise in the cost of living or the capacity of the industry to pay? If so, why is it only quite lately that the farmers' representatives on the Board have put forward requests for reduction? Is it really seriously contended that, because in one or two instances there has been a slight lack of elasticity in the actions of the Board, that is a real argument for scrapping the whole machinery? All the difficulties which have appeared in the working of the Wages Board can perfectly well be put right by some slight alteration in Parliament of the Act. As to the complaint of lack of elasticity, under the present regulations it is possible, as the Member for Norfolk said, for labourers to work as long as they like, so long as they are paid a proper wage. Stockmen in Westmoreland and Cumberland work 63 hours in a week. They are paid a higher wage. There is no reason why any county should not do the same, if the District Boards agree to it.
Then there is the question whether Wages Boards should stand alone and be considered as a separate part of the Agricultural Act. I thought the arguments on this point adduced by the Minister of Agriculture singularly unconvincing. We cannot get away from the fact that Mr. Prothero, when introducing the Corn Production Bill, categorically denied that there was any connection between the two. Everybody with any connection with agriculture knows that some time before there was any talk of the Corn Production Act public opinion was growing rapidly in favour of some statutory regulation of wages. About the years 1910–11 there was a great awakening as to the condition of the agricultural labourer, and people who had never troubled their heads about agriculture were shocked to find that the agricultural labourer was a sweated worker, that there were unreasonable unaccountable variations of wage between county and county, and even within the country, and that they were caused by the fact that the industry was entirely unorganised. Opinion was rapidly coming round to the idea that the only way to set the matter right was the introduction of a statutory wage.
I remember several of my hon. Friends— and I am not sure that the present Minister of Agriculture was not one— who were so convinced as to the necessity for this that they prepared a Bill and introduced it into Parliament, and even persuaded leaders of the Unionist party to accept the idea, and even if there had been no question of guaranteed prices public opinion would have demanded that there should have been wages boards introduced into agriculture. Wages boards were a necessity and still are a necessity for the reason that trade boards are a necessity in other organised industries, mainly for the purpose of bringing the bad employer up to the level of the good employer. I shall support my hon. Friends in the Lobby in protesting against the abolition of wages boards. It is lamentable to set the clock back in the way in which the Government propose to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) pointed out that it is delightful to go about the country now and see the great improvement that has taken place in the condition of the people, who appear now to be so free and independent, a different kind of people altogether from what they used to be. It will be a grievous wrong to these people to take away the protection of these wages boards, and I hope that my hon. Friends will later on be able so to mitigate the Government policy that the labourer will still have the protection to which he is entitled.
:When the Agriculture Bill was going through this House in December last, I spoke and voted in its favour, and I little thought when I was attending the birth of the child that six months later I should follow its funeral. Very few people in the House thought so then. There are things to be said both on the labourers' side and on the farmers' side. I do not think that anyone in this House will accuse me of any want of sympathy for the agricultural labourer. I remember that on two occasions in this House I brought the state of his wages, how he lived, and his family budget, which I had direct from labourers themselves, before the House; and I may repeat what I said on previous occasions, that in past years the labourer was scandalously housed and scandalously paid. But there has been a great improvement in his position during the last few years, and that improvement has taken place side by side with an improvement in the position of the farmer. The farmer getting better prices, whether for stock, wool, hay, corn, or whatever he had to sell during the War, the wages went up too.
Since the intimation was given in this House three weeks ago that Part I of the Act was to be scrapped, I have taken every opportunity by public meeting and private interviews to obtain the views of both farmers and labourers as to what is to be the state of things in the future. There are two things which the farmers put up against me. They say, "It is all very well for you to plead for a fair, good wage for the labourer. We are willing to pay it when we can, but we cannot always do it." The reasons brought forward are, "We as farmers are subject to two things in getting our livelihood to which no other class is subject." There is a great deal to be said for that. Farming is subject to the weather in a way in which no other industry is subject to it. To people working in a factory it does not matter whether the sun is shining or rain is falling, whether it is winter or summer, frost or snow. People engaged on railways, in mines, or on the sea are in very much the same position. But the farmer is absolutely dependent upon the weather, and in very many cases the best farmer in the district finds his judgment beaten by what he thinks is the perverse course of Nature.
Just now I have seen what I have never seen before after living all my life in the country, that is, oats being cut and carried in the month of June. But what sort of oats? What sort of crop, and what kind of straw? I would honestly say that by the time they are cut, carried and thrashed I doubt very much whether the farmer will have a new penny piece for an old one. Another year like 1879 he may get absolutely drowned out. I remember walking on the estate of a gentleman who was in this House for 25 years, as Member for Tewkesbury, the late Sir John Dorrington, on Boxing Day, 1879, and I saw sheafs of corn there lying on the ground. I measured the green sprouts, which were 15 to 16 inches long. That corn was never carried and thrashed; it was simply put into the yard. That was the case with the corn of thousands of farmers. Farmers have a great deal to put up with which other employers of labour have not to put up with. The next thing the farmer says is, "It does not matter two straws what I have to sell; I am open to the competition of the world. If it is wool I am open to competition from various countries. It is the same whether it is mutton or whether it is beef. They actually tell me now that they are bringing in milk from Holland, so that I shall be knocked on the head." There is competition all the way round. One farmer got so cross with me that he said, "You do not believe what I am saying, so I will send you an account showing how my farm accounts stand in regard to three items, compared with 1917." Surely enough I had the document sent to me by the farmer, who farms his own farm, with very large capital, and is one of the finest breeders of shorthorns in the Kingdom. It shows that his rates have gone up from £72 3s. 5d. in 1917 to £200 8s. 6d., that his tithe has increased from £158 16s. to £226 4s. 6d., and his wages bill from £1,011 19s. 8d. to £2,936 14s. 5d. Taking those three items alone you have an increase upon his rates of £128 5s. 1d., upon his tithes of £67 8s. 6d., and upon his wages of £1,924 14s. 9d., or a total increase of £2,120 8s. 4d.
Bear in mind that that money has to come out of the land somehow. If it does not come of the land, what happens? It comes out of his capital. Then he cannot go on very long, for he will be bankrupt. As far as I can see, it is not possible to reduce the farmer's costs in many ways, as things are going on now. As I have said before in this House, this country is suffering from the fact that it is overtaxed and overrated, and the rates in the country are getting worse than the taxes. This Government and the previous Government, at any rate the Coalition Governments, have increased the police pay—I do not blame them in the slightest —by more than double. The education rate has quadrupled. I do not blame them, for we want education. Road costs in Gloucester are more than three times what they were before the War. All these things have to come out of someone's pockets. Much of it comes out of the taxpayer's pockets and much of it out of the ratepayer's pockets, and to-day most people are finding that they are both ratepayers and taxpayers. If ever there was a time when the Government should keep faith with the agricultural population, now is the time.
:Has the farmer in question been good enough to give the hon. Gentleman figures of his increased' receipts from the commodities he sold?
:I am coming to that. The farmer admits that up to 1920 he has-been getting double and treble for nearly everything he has to sell. But remember this: Twelve months ago the farmer got for washed wool 4s. and 4s. 2d. a pound. What is he getting for it to-day? Not 4s. 2d., nor 3s. 2d., nor even 1s. 2d.
:But more than he got in 1913.
:No. Suppose it was more than he got in 1913. It has been pointed out already that his expenses are three times as high as they were in 1913. Up to 1920 the farmer had the time of his life. If he did not make money in those days he must have been a bigger fool than I took him to be, because he had the chance to make it. Do not let us generalise, because during the four years of the War the farmer had the time of his life, that he has always had it or is always going to have it. The tide has turned. Everything he has to sell to-day is coming down in price. At the same time he does not find that his expenses are coming down in anything like the same ratio. On the question of agricultural wages, in the first speech I made in this House I mentioned that an agricultural labourer's wife had told me that her husband's wages from October, 1913, to March, 1914, were 14s. a week, out of which he had to pay rent, because her husband was employed as a day man. The wage of 14s. has gone up to 46s. Let me point out how reasonable the labourer is. I have had an interview in this House with representatives of the Agricultural Labourers' Union. I am fully in touch with them. I am to meet 16 branches of the union at a conference next Saturday. These men have actually said to me, "We know that the gaffer has had a jolly good time up to last year, but now things are going to the bad, and this harvest is going to be a pretty bad one. Do you think it is possible that he will drop his wages to 40s. by two instalments of 3s. each? If so, we will try our best to meet him." That is a very nice spirit to be shown by the men without their having been asked I replied to them, "Am I at liberty to say to the farmers whom I shall meet that you are willing to accept a reduction of 6s. per week?" They answered, "We cannot say that officially on behalf of the union, because we have not consulted the union, but we do say that that would be a fair thing to do."
I travelled from Cirencester to London to-day with a lady farmer who farms 350 acres about four miles from where I live. She told me that on Friday night, when she paid her wages, her labourers said to her, "Well, ma'am; you put up our wages without being forced when times were good. We are willing for you to take 3s. off when the harvest is over and 3s. more in the spring, if things are not better for you." That statement came voluntarily from the labourers of a good employer. In some parts of the country there is a very good spirit of give and take on both sides. We want to encourage that good spirit on both sides. I shall use every effort to see that when any alteration in wages is made it shall be done as far as possible in a conciliatory spirit. I have always found the; labourer willing to face any difficulty, if you point it out to him, but with his limited education in the past, with his stay-at-home habits, he has not taken a broad view of things. I have found that when you talk to him in a fair way and point out the whys and wherefors, as to why this is done and that is not done, he is never unreasonable.
The Government have told us that they are bringing this Bill to abolish Part I of the Act. Two things at once occur to me. What are you going to put in its place? Are you going to allow the industry to drift back into its old condition; are you going to allow wages to drop to 13s. and 14s. a week; are you going to let wheat prices drop down to the stage at which they were, when you could get eight bushels for 19s. or £1? There are no wages in that price. The Government, if they are going to get my vote, must put something in the place of what they are now proposing to repeal. You have given one of the greatest shocks to the belief of the bulk of the people in this country, in the fair play of Parliament and the Government, that has ever been given. The people say, "Here is a pledge given to us that we shall for at least four years have a certain amount of peace and security, and because within six months after that has been passed the-Government find that things are not panning out as they expected, they are proceeding to repeal their own legislation." There were no "ifs" or "buts," when the Act was passed. The people were not told that if the revenue came in they would get this advantage, but if the revenue did not come in it would be withdrawn. As a supporter of the Government, I must say that unless they do something to replace what they are now repealing it will be a distinct breach of faith, and, supporter of the Government as I am, I must vote against them on the ground of their failure to fulfil their pledge.
What has become of the promise given by the Prime Minister that something should be done for agriculture? So far we have heard nothing about that. I say most emphatically that it is not a question altogether for the Government, but a question for Parliament itself. The good word of Parliament has been pledged to the people, and if it is not carried out the people will put it down not so much to the fault of the Government as to the fault of Parliament. The responsibility is on Parliament itself. The pledge of the Prime Minister of this country was given that the industry was not to be allowed to drift back, and the pledge of the Parliament of this country was given that for four years there should be a certain amount of guarantee. If both these pledges are to be broken, how can you wonder that people are going round the country and stirring up Bolshevist feeling? Can you wonder at people saying, "Look at your British Parliament which passes a law, and because it does not suit them to carry it out, they break it, and they will serve you so again and again"? There is no answer to it. Some people will say that we cannot afford it, but, as I have already reminded the House, when the Act was passed no such conditions were attached. The Act did not say that certain things would be done if the country could stand it. It said those things were to be done. That being so, unless the Government put into the Repealing Act something calculated to ease the situation, then I am bound to vote against them on this matter.
10.0 P.M.
:Two questions have been raised in this Debate, essentially different one from the other. One is the question of the policy of the Act which it is now sought to repeal, and the other is as to whether the Government and Parliament are breaking faith with the industry by the proposal now before the House. I feel the drawbacks of the present position in regard to the charge that we are breaking faith with the industry by proposing to repeal a settled system of administration and a settled policy for agriculture. None of us, not even the Minister of Agriculture or the Leader of the House, can get up in this Debate without feeling that we should not be asked to do what we are asked to do, unless there is some tremendously strong reason for it. It is much better to face that fact fairly and squarely. A grave and deliberate change of policy is involved in the proposal before the House. The Prime Minister, both before the present Government and since, has said that in the proposals of the Corn Production Act and of the Act of last year we were debating a policy which was to be regarded as the settled policy of the Government. This House in providing that the Act should not be withdrawn by administrative action except on four years' notice, did, in effect, say to the agricultural industry, "This is a settled policy, in some sense or other." The crux of the position is, In what sense was that promise given? Was it a promise that in no circumstances would the policy be changed, was it a promise that nothing would be done to harm the agricultural industry, or was it a promise that that policy would be adhered to only if it was consistent with the interests of all the other industries of the country as well as agriculture? In every Act of Parliament and in every statement by the Government of this country as to future policy it must be implicit in a promise either by Parliament or by Gov- ernment that if circumstances in the future change so radically as to make adherence to that policy harmful to all the industries of the country, that policy must be changed. I believe the great majority of the Members of this House feel to-day that the position has so changed, on account of the financial stress in which we find ourselves, that we have no option but to say to the agricultural industry: You yourselves must admit that our promise was subject to the implied term, that if by keeping that promise we should harm the whole country we should automatically be released from the obligation to do the greater harm in order to preserve the lesser good. That is the reality of the case.
On the questions of policy underlying the Act, I readily concede there may be many different views. I speak with a sense of responsibility about it, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) has already said, he and I and Mr. Strutt—that great agriculturist—joined together in 1916 in putting forward what, to some extent, were the essentials of the plan which the Government subsequently adopted in the Corn Production Act of 1917, which it has carried on since, and which it has now sought to repeal. The policy which we proposed then was in certain respects different and perhaps radically different from the policy which is enshrined in the existing Act of Parliament. What has happened is that the prices fixed as guarantee prices for wheat and oats, and particularly oats, were fixed so high as to be a long way above what may be regarded, we hope, as the normal post-War level of prices. If the prices are substantially above the normal level, the necessary operation of the Act is to create an obligation to give an annual subsidy, and it is just because the Act has turned into a subsidy Act that the Government is asking for its repeal. The system that my friend the Member for Norwich and myself proposed was essentially different. It may be it was a system the farmers would have said was no use, that is a matter on which there could be two opinions, but the system was one under which a level of prices to be guaranteed by the Government should certainly be not higher than a mean level of prices, or perhaps rather lower. The figure we advised in 1916 was 45s. If 45s. had been the figure it would have been a great many years from now before any subsidy had to be paid.
Our idea was not to give a subsidy year by year to the industry out of which profits could be made, but, by fixing the lowest level, to provide, as it were, an insurance against a disaster such as over took the industry in the eighties and the nineties, when, as a Member who has spoken here to-night said, wheat was sold as low as 19s. a quarter. It would not have been a great thing, and not a thing to be exaggerated, but it would have been something for the industry to know that the eighties and the nineties could never return, and that with the protecting guard of that insurance they could rely on keeping out of the Bankruptcy Court. But the moment the guaranteed price was put at a high level, as it was pursuant to the advice of the Royal Commission on the industry, the inevitable result was that, as soon as world prices began to get down to what you might call the normal position, this country came under the obligation of giving a big subsidy. I noticed with interest the cheers from the benches opposite just now when an hon. Member behind me was speaking. Those cheers were in support of the present system of subsidies, and against the repeal of the present system. They were in favour of giving a large subsidy to the farmers, and they were cheers from the very benches from which only a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister stood at that box and said a subsidy could not be given to the coal industry, because subsidies could not be given by the Government to all industries, came many shouts of "What about the farmers?" The Labour party, at any rate, in objecting to a subsidy to the farmers, expressed a view then that is inconsistent with their objections to the Government proposal. The Labour party is opposing the repeal of the present Agriculture Act, they are asking for the continuance of subsidies, and very large subsidies; but I say that a large majority of this House is convinced that we cannot conduct our national economy on the principle of taking in each other's washing, one industry subsidising another.
There is one more aspect to which I would like to refer, a very important aspect, the question of the Wages Board and the wages of the agricultural labourers. With the general view that profits are the mother of wages I am in perfect agreement, and good wages can only come if the farmer himself is making a good living, and the best security for good wages is that the farmer should be prosperous; but before the War agriculture was in a very peculiar position as regards wages. In 1914 I had the honour of presenting to this House a Wages Bill providing for a Wages Board system in the agricultural industry. At that time the wages in certain counties were a scandal, and it was because the labourers in those counties had no organisation and could take no common action. Their position was very much the same as the position of workmen in some of the industries to which the Trade Board Acts were applied in the first instance. The same kind of remedy had to be provided for the same kind of disease, an utter want of organisation. I do not believe there is a farmer who would say the wages given in certain counties at that time could be justified, and I felt it was essential to take some steps which would assist the labourers in those counties to organise. The introduction of the Agricultural Wages Board has had that effect to a great extent. There is no doubt that the organisation of agricultural labourers to-day is absolutely different from what it was before the War, and, broadly speaking, they are to-day far better able to help themselves, and I am perfectly certain that if the Wages Board were at once abolished that, however slow they were in certain counties to reach the kind of organisation they have in Scotland or in Norfolk, we should never see a return to the state of things that existed in some of our counties before the War. Although the Wages Board has served an extraordinarily useful purpose in encouraging and enabling labourers to unite in some counties, I do recognise that at present there are difficulties in the way of the immediate setting up of Whitley Councils, successfully, on the lines indicated by the Bill. I listened with profound interest to and was much impressed by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). I do not agree with the conclusions at which I think he arrived that he would oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, I strongly support the Second Reading, but in his proposal that possibly an Amendment might be accepted by the Government in Committee. I could not help overhearing a word that fell from the Front Bench— the word "difficulty." I think if we could postpone the operation of the part of the Bill dealing with the Wages Board and say the Wages Board shall not be wiped out altogether on the 1st October, but that it shall continue until in each district there is a satisfactory degree of organisation on both sides—I think that is a suggestion very well worthy of the careful consideration of the House and the Government. I do not think my right hon. Friend intended, he certainly did not say he intended, that there should be an absolutely indefinite postponement of the Wages Board.
:A time limit.
:He intervenes to say he would accept the time limit. Supposing for argument's sake we take a time limit of a year—that is a Committee point— and provide that, in the different districts where wages board committees now exist, each committee should continue to operate under the Central Board until it was certified by some appropriate machinery that there was a suitable and effective organisation both of employers and labourers in that district—a suitable council representing the two sides sufficiently to make the decisions of the council really effective and operative in practice—then, as he suggested, I think it would have the effect of rapidly accelerating the advent of those councils which the Bill certainly contains no adequate machinery for bringing into existence. The Bill expresses the goodwill of the Minister to such councils, but it provides no machinery.
:My hon. and learned Friend has not said a word yet to show why he objects to the Wages Boards; he has not produced a single argument for their abolition.
:I was going to say a word or two on that subject as soon as I had dealt with this point. I leave that, with the suggestion to the Government that that is a matter that might well be considered very carefully in Committee. One objection to it I do see, and that is that the farmers may say that by repealing the Act you are committing one breach of faith, but that by repealing the guaran- tees without repealing the Wages Board provisions, you would be committing two-breaches of faith, and I think that that aspect of the matter is one that is very much to be considered. It is a very serious aspect of the matter, but if the postponement were of that very limited duration that I suggest, it might be that the Farmers' Union, who represent a very large number of our farmers, and represent them very well, might see their way to support a postponement of the abolition of the Wages Board for that limited period.
A word as to the question of the Wages Board. The reason why I oppose a Wages Board for the agricultural industry is that in a big industry, when it is well organised, I object altogether to the legal control of wages agreements. I believe they ought to be left to the free bargaining of the two sides. To introduce a compulsory machinery such as the Trade Board machinery in one of our great industries, like the railways, or mining, or engineering, would, to my mind, be contrary to all sound industrial policy, and I believe that the industry of agriculture has now passed out of its-initial stage when, in many parts of the country, it was an unorganised industry, when it could not get on without the legal splints of such a machinery, and is now in a position, or rapidly approaching a position, where it can organise itself with perfect freedom. That is the reason why, having been in favour of a Wages Board for agriculture before the War, I am anxious to see the Wages Board system for agriculture dispensed with now as soon as we possibly can, because it is a great industry, an industry which is rapidly becoming organised, and which, I think, if there were a certain interval given now, would become by the end of that interval completely organised. For those reasons I personally am strongly in favour of the course the Government have taken. The argument addressed by the right hon. Member for the South Molton division, that this country can quite easily afford £120,000,000 is, with great respect to him, ridiculous nonsense.
:The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. I said that rather than violate the Constitution I would pay £120,000,000. You could easily save it in £30,000,000 a year in Mesopotamia.
:My reply is that we should save both.
:I agree, and we will vote for saving it on Thursday week.
:Because you can save £30,000,000 in one place, that is no reason for not saving it in another.
:Quite!
:I express no opinion upon Mesopotamia in particular, but I do say that it is vitally necessary in the interests of the country at the present time that taxation should be cut down somehow.
:Why do you not do it then?
:The right hon. Gentleman, who is a welcome and honoured apostle of economy in this House—I have heard him again and again—say it does not matter —that is the point to-day.
:Oh, no, no. What I said was "honestly matters."
:In regard to the plea of honesty, I have already said, and I do say, that the answer is a simple one, namely, you are acting honestly if you are to choose—
:Special pleading !
:The right hon. Gentleman can call it special pleading if he likes, but in every undertaking of the kind it is absolutely essential that there should be the implied condition that you are not going to ruin the country, in order to benefit any particular industry. I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the broad principle that once the Government and this House has given anything in the nature of a promise, even if it costs much, it ought to be carried out; but are you going to say that the financial position of this country to-day is anything comparable to what it was in the lives of any of us, that the events which have happened during the last six months are anything like what could have been anticipated last December? Did anybody foresee—
:Yes, we told you so.
the coal dispute, and the untold dislocation of industry that we have seen, with a complete falling off of our foreign trade? We have no course open to us but to take that suggested by the Government—reluctantly it may be, but to take it!
:I very reluctantly followed the Government last December and supported the passing of the Agriculture Bill. I could not possibly follow them now in trying, after only six months' trial, to upset it altogether. I had the honour of giving evidence before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, and my hon. Friend, I think it was the Member for the Grinstead Division, put a great many questions to me. If I remember rightly he asked me what I would do with regard to future legislation, and I said that I would certainly wait till the Corn Production Act had run its course, or nearly so, before proceeding to legislation. The Corn Production Act, 1917, would have run its course in 1922, and by that time the Government would have been able to say what was happening. Prices would have steadied, and at any rate we should have been in a much better position to legislate than we were last year. That was my view, and I expressed it at that time. The Government determined that they would legislate, and they did, and to-day we are asked to vote in favour of a Bill to abolish all that we did last year. I do not believe that, if the Government were to boldly set up their commissioners and follow out the scheme of their Act of last year they would have been called upon to pay £20,000,000 this year. According to the scheme of the Act of Parliament the year 1919 is taken as the standard year, and it is laid down that in that standard year the cost of production of a quarter of wheat is 68s. Commissioners were to be set up to ascertain whether the cost of production had increased since 1919 or decreased and the standard price was to be fixed accordingly, and if the world's price fell below that then the Government were to pay the difference. In my judgment the Government would have been wise to have allowed those Commissioners to have been appointed, and to have followed the scheme of the Act of Parliament. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) is correct in his estimate that the cost of production has gone up 15 per cent. since 1919. I agree with what has been said by another hon. Member on this point, that it would probably be con- siderably less than that. It is true that agricultural wages have advanced since then by 8s. a week. Then they were 40s. 6d. and now they are 48s. 6d. I know that in Lincolshire in 1919 the wages were 40s. 6d.
:Not for the whole of 1919.
:In May at any rate, and to-day they are 48s. 6d., so that is an increase of 8s. a week.
:What about overtime increases?
:That makes very little difference.
:The average increase is about 12s. per week.
:I know that the cost of team labour has gone down, and the cost of keeping horses has been reduced. I have been told that the cost of team labour has gone down considerably since 1919, when hay and oats were at the highest price. This Bill now proposes that we should pay the farmer 15s. per quarter on the top of 68s., that is 83s., so that the world's price would have to come below 83s. to make payable the subsidy or guarantee which is now offered. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I believe if the Government had boldly set up the Commission and gone into this question of costs they would have found that they would not have had anything like £20,000,000 to pay this year;
With regard to the other parts of this Bill, I have read the Clause setting up these voluntary conciliation boards, and I have heard what the President of the Board of Agriculture has said. I do not believe that the farmers of this country will make any serious attempt to set up these conciliation boards. I have lived amongst them all my life, and I do not believe they will make any serious attempt to set them up. Why should they? Why should members of the Farmers' Union set up conciliation boards and then have no power to enforce the decisions of those boards? I understand that the conciliation board is to consist half of farmers and half of the representatives of labour, with an independent chairman. When they come to a decision as to what wages are to be paid in certain districts, how are they to proceed to put that decision into operation? The moment they ask A or B to pay a given rate of wages they will be told to hang themselves, and the farmer will add that he would sooner retire from the Farmers' Union than pay. That will prevent the Farmers' Union going, on with the Conciliation Boards. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had better make up their minds that this voluntary conciliation board will not work, and, therefore, if we lose the Wages Board, or something analogous to it, we shall get back to the old system of Supply and Demand. Like the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), I am in favour of giving full notice before we withdraw from this position. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the' Caxton Hall on the 21st October, 1919: these ex-service tenants, and we must do it before it is too late. In addition to that, these ex-service men were not only put on the land at high rents, but the county councils were ordered to increase the rents to the tenants of smallholdings who were on the land before the War. All of those tenants who have been in possession since the passing of the Smallholdings Act, 1908, have had their rents increased, because, they are told, they are getting higher prices for their produce and have security. The Ministry of Agriculture will have to face that, and will have to agree to these rents going back, in the case of those men who were in possession before the War, to what they were in 1914, and in the case of the ex-service men also to a considerable extent.
The agricultural districts are coming out very badly in the Government reconstruction scheme. First of all, the housing schemes have been very much curtailed in the rural districts, and I may tell the Minister of Health, whom I see is in his place, that in my constituency practically all the housing schemes in our villages are scrapped. We were going to get seven houses in one village, eight in another, and so on, but we have had none, or very few; and now the Ministry have sent word that there is no more money, and that the thing must stop. Therefore, we in the rural districts are not going to get our houses, and wages are going to fall, though I hope not to the pre-War level, because in my constituency, the winter before the War, men were getting the handsome sum of 14s. a week. I hope it will not fall as low as that, because the Agricultural Labourers' Union is stronger than it was in those days. Bad tenants, also, are to be allowed to go as they please, and the power, as far as I can see, is, to a large extent, taken out of the hands of the landlord to control them. Our last state, therefore, is going to be worse than our first. I deeply regret that the Government have decided upon this course, and I shall have no hesitation in voting against them.
:The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Sir E. Winfrey) has passed some very strong criticisms on the Government, with which I am disposed to agree. I think they are very much to blame for their lack of foresight, and, when one reads the speech of the Minister of Agriculture on the Second Reading of the Bill on the 7th June last year, one cannot but admire his courage in coming down to the House with this Bill to-day. I do not want to follow up any further the points of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk on that subject, but rather to say a word on what has fallen from a good many other hon. Members during the Debate, as to the obligation of honour under which, they say, we in this House are bound to carry on this guarantee for four years. It has been suggested that, when an Act of Parliament is passed, it is a pledged word from which we cannot depart, and we were challenged to produce any instance to the contrary. There is one instance very much on the same lines. This House passed, during the War, a very ambitious education scheme. That scheme, owing to the same financial difficulties, has had to be very strictly curtailed, but I have never heard it suggested that that was a breach of faith.
:Yes.
:I think that very few people will agree with the hon. Member in that. I think people will say that it is the duty of the Government to see that we do not become insolvent. This Bill, after all, only provides this method of an Order in Council as an alternative to the normal method of repeal by Act of Parliament. It is very curious how it specifically states what I should have thought everyone knew, that Parliament at any time can repeal this Act, and it is perfectly clear that this four years' provision was put in as another machinery working by Order in Council. I have looked at this matter with a good deal of anxiety, because it has been very generally said, I think owing to a confusion of thought, that this House would be breaking its word.
If you press this contract analogy to what I believe to be an unjustifiable length, you must remember that the four years bargain was between the State and the farmer, and it was laid down quite clearly in the Debate last year that it was to enable the farmer to arrange his crops years ahead. There was not a word said about this four-years' period being put in in the interest of the agricultural labourer. I am not a lawyer, but even those unlearned in the law know quite well that you can only claim to enforce a contract if there is valuable consideration on either side. The State has given valuable consideration in the form of the guarantee. The farmer gave valuable consideration, or was expected to do so, in the shape of a large acreage under cereal crops. It is quite true that that object has not been attained, owing to the faulty machinery of the Bill allowing the farmer only the bare cost, which has not enabled him to keep up his cereal crop cultivation. Those were the only two parties who really put forward any valuable consideration in what many hon. Members appeared to think was a contract, and as both parties are willing that the contract should be cancelled, it seems to me that there can be no suggestion that there is a breach of faith in bringing it to an end. The labourer was not brought into the contract in any way. He was only affected incidentally. The State said, "We are finding this very large sum of money and we must provide that it does not stay in the farmers' pocket, and that it goes to the agricultural labourer." That is the only-way he came in, and that enables us to consider his interests quite separately. To my mind, the Wages Board has not worked satisfactorily from the point of view of the long interest of the agricultural labourer. It has been a great mistake certainly on the light lands that they worked by means of a standard wage instead of a minimum, and that they should have applied compulsion to enforce the same wages on light lands as could be paid on better farms. It has also been very much against the interests of agricultural labourers, as a whole, that the inexperienced boy and the infirm old man must, if they are employed at all, be paid as much as the highly skilled man in the prime of life, and this has discouraged efficiency and has been very cruel in depriving the old men of that employment that was fitted for their years. I have seen in my constituency the balance sheets of farmers who have to deal with light lands, and I have for months past felt that we were going fast towards agricultural disaster. For that reason it is advisable that we have a more elastic method of fixing wages, and in the interest of the agricultural labourers themselves to keep them their employment and to prevent them stand- ing about with no work, I believe that the councils associated with your name, Mr. Speaker, are more likely to achieve this lasting system than the Wages Board, with their past very unfortunate record, are likely to do. The labourers at the present time are in a very reasonable frame of mind, so far as I can judge. They recognise that the farmers cannot pay out in wages more than the men produce, and in the Eastern Counties I believe they will find that the farmers are very ready to meet them in the same spirit.
The Government have put their supporters who represent agricultural constituencies in an extremely unfair position. Last year they were scattering our resources in giving subsidies to all kinds of industries. A great many of us felt that along that path lay national bankruptcy; but as these subsidies were being poured out to industries far better paid than agriculture, it was impossible for us, when the Government brought forward this scheme, to say that we would reject it in view of the lower remuneration which those whom we represented were receiving. We also had to consider that, under the lack of system which up till then existed, agriculture was driven into very serious difficulties. All classes connected with the land felt doubts as to the intentions of the Government. Farmers heard so many conflicting statements as to decontrol, which was never carried out thoroughly, as to the minimum prices which would be paid and which did not materialise, that there was a great and a dangerous amount of uncertainty. Farmers could have coped with the situation if they had had a free market and free conditions, enabling them to calculate their chances as men in business, but as the Government would not allow that, and kept steering a zigzag course, it was necessary last year to accept Part I of the Agriculture Act as the smaller of two evils. There is no doubt that the Government intended it to be permanent, and I was astounded, after reading the speech of the Minister of Agriculture last year, to hear the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon that he knew from the first that it was only temporary. The strongest impression which this proceeding has left on my mind is bewilderment at the detachment of the Government from the world around them and the forces among which they move. The figures which have so startled them in the last few weeks were put before the House by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. Member for Rye (Lieut.-Colonel Courthope) and other agricultural speakers in the Debate last year. It is an object lesson in the futility of our Debates under present conditions, when these very figures and arguments, to which the Government were entirely deaf less than a year ago, have been taken up and shouted back by them now at those who used them a year ago. I think the explanation is that we are not now living under Cabinet Government. I remember that in these Debates we never used to have any Ministers present, and there is no doubt that the Prime Minister, who is the dictator of our destinies during the eclipse of the Cabinet, was otherwise engaged on very necessary work. All these figures used in the House never reached him. That kind of performance is disastrous to public confidence. I do not think there has been a breach of faith, but I do think there has been an extraordinary amount of inefficiency on the part of the Government. As I do not think there has been a breach of faith, I do not feel justified in voting against the Government now that the Government has shown repentance, however tardy, for their economic fallacies, and have shown that in the future we have to make very drastic cuts to avoid financial insolvency.
:In view of the fact that almost every Member who has spoken has spoken against the Bill, I rise in order that the impression should not be wrongly conveyed that the whole House is in opposition to the Bill. By an industrial constituency, this tardy recognition of hard economic facts by the Government is very greatly welcomed. I will only say of the right hon. Gentleman who has had the courage to come down and admit that a mistake has been made that I regret he did not say so long ago. The opportunity we now have of avoiding the throwing of a sum of £30,000,000 upon the taxpayer next year is one which this House cannot afford to miss. I was astonished that Members who, like the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), opposed the granting of this subsidy, and foresaw the possibilities of it, should now turn round and refuse to support the Government in taking a perfectly obvious course.
:I was no very warm supporter of the original Act. When it was before the House I was not on the Second Reading able to give my views. There was no Division, and the Bill went to a Committee upstairs. The only opposition I could put forward was to persuade my fellow Members that the Bill was not going to be of advantage to the agriculture of this country. On the Report stage, I remember that hon. Members of the Labour party, and, I think, also of the Opposition, twitted certain Members of this House with not having opposed the subsidy for agriculture. I said I would oppose the subsidy were it not that subsidies were being paid to workmen in other industries. I would not oppose it being paid to the agricultural industry, seeing that the agricultural labourer had not received high wages in the past. As the Bill proceeded, the more fully I appreciated it, and the more fully I was convinced, as I heard the arguments of practical men, that it was not going to be of advantage to agriculture. But it was a great surprise to me that after this very short notice the Government should now come down and ask us to repeal this Act. I was not altogether surprised. I always thought that the agricultural policy of the Government was likely to bring them into trouble, but, having heard that this Act was going to bring such enormous benefits to the country, I was surprised to find that the saner, wiser policy of the men who knew should begin to tell within six short months, and that the Government should now come back and accept the view of the men who knew. I am going to support this Bill. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) is not going into the same Lobby with me. I appreciate enormously the work which he did, the power and ability with which he put the points in reference to this matter, in a way in which I never could hope to do. I believe that I would agree with him in nine points out of ten. I heard him adumbrate a policy which, if the Minister had adopted it, would never have got him into this trouble. The Government made mistakes, but I believe that they are right in repealing a Measure which I never thought to the advantage of our country. In reference to the proposals of this Bill, no man is more ready than I to recognise that the agricultural labourer, if you treat him well, will do His best for his employer. There is no more honest or efficient man than the agricultural labourer, and if I can do anything to help him, when the Bill is going through Committee, I will do so, but if we want to get prosperity into this industry it must be known that the man who does his best will get better wages than the man who does his worst.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
SUPPLY [1ST JULY].
Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1921–22
Unclassified Services
Resolution reported,
"That a sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, 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, 1922, for a subvention in aid of wages in the Coal Mining Industry."
Resolution agreed to.
SUPPLY [14TH JUNE],
Resolution reported,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,197,000, 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, 1922, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid.
Resolution read a Second time.
:I beg to move to leave out "£27,197,000" and to insert instead thereof "£26,197,000."
After the debate we have had, and the very grave statement on the financial position by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is unthinkable that the Government should ask us to vote this huge sum for the Middle East. We find that for repayment to the War Office of expenditure on military services, the sum asked for is £24,000,000. That sum is much too high. Had we carried out the pledges given to the population of Mesopotamia when we entered Baghdad, the rising of last year would have been avoided, with its regrettable loss of life. Another item is repayment to the Air Ministry for expenditure on air services, £1,300,000. Here the same criticism applies. Last year we were promised that, owing to the use of tanks and armoured cars and aircraft in Mesopotamia, the expenditure on infantry and cavalry would be avoided. To remind the House of that promise is sufficient criticism of that Vote. Further on we come to capital expenditure on Mesopotamian railways. We heard a good deal at the General Election about the light railways that were to transform the English countryside. We have not heard of many miles of light railways having been begun yet. None the less, we can spend £300,000 on light railways in Mesopotamia. The hon. Member beside me (Dr. Murray) has again and again brought before the House the sad case of his constituents in the Western Isles and the need of a regular daily mail-boat service. We can spend money for steamers on the Euphrates and Tigris, but we cannot give a hand to the people of the Western Isles who played a brave part in the War. I ask the House to seriously consider the state of affairs which exist when, owing to the financial situation, it is impossible to spend money in this country for the good of our own people, yet we are asked to vote enormous sums for people who do not want us. They do not want our money; they only want to see our backs and to be left to work out their own salvation. There are two ways of looking at the problem of these so-called "backward peoples," amongst whom, I presume, the Arabs are included. One view is that they should be spoon-fed and educated and brought up until we think they are fit to govern themselves. By that time we shall have established a vested interest in a huge service of bureaucrats. The greatest opposition to the people of India establishing their own form of government has all along come from the bureaucracy which was; created in India for the alleged purpose of leading the people along the path of self-government. The other view is that a people can only stand on their feet when the responsibility of self-government is put upon them. I believe that is the right policy, and I am certain it is the policy which this country can afford instead of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Vote.
:I beg to second the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Question put, "That £27,197,000 stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 48.
Division No. 221.] AYES. [11.10 p.m. Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Nall, Major Joseph Ainsworth, Captain Charles Fraser, Major Sir Keith Neal, Arthur Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Armstrong, Henry Bruce Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W. Glyn, Major Ralph Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gregory, Holman Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. Greig, Colonel Sir James William Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Barlow, Sir Montague Gritten, W. G. Howard Purchase, H. G. Barnett, Major Richard W. Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Rankin, Captain James Stuart Barnston, Major Harry Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, D. D. Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) Remnant, Sir James Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) Renwick, Sir George Bigland, Alfred Hinds, John Roundell, Colonel R. F. Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith Hood, Joseph Seddon, J. A. Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) Brassey, H. L. C. Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Howard, Major S. G. Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) Brown, T. W. (Down, North) Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander Bruton, Sir James Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K. Casey, T. W. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Stevens, Marshall Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) Jodrell, Neville Paul Sturrock, J. Leng Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) Johnson, Sir Stanley Sugden, W. H. Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill Johnstone, Joseph Sutherland, Sir William Clough, Robert Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) Tryon, Major George Clement Coats, Sir Stuart Kidd, James Waddington, R. Cope, Major William King, Captain Henry Douglas Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Weston, Colonel John Wakefield Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Lindsay, William Arthur Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) Lloyd, George Butler Williams, C. (Tavistock) Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury) Dawes, James Arthur Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) Dean, Commander P. T. Lorden, John William Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry Loseby, Captain C. E. Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. Du Pre, Colonel William Baring McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Winfrey, Sir Richard Edge, Captain William Mallalieu, Frederick William Wise, Frederick Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Mitchell, Sir William Lane Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) Falcon, Captain Michael Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. Worsfold, T. Cato Farquharson, Major A. C. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Young, E. H. (Norwich) Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Moreing, Captain Algernon H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES — FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Colonel Lesile Wilson and Mr. Ford, Patrick Johnston Murray, John (Leeds, West) Parker.
NOES. Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) Barton, Sir William (Oldham) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Rose, Frank H. Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) Kenyon, Barnet Royce, William Stapleton Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Lawson, John James Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) Devlin, Joseph Morgan, Major D. Watts Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morrison, Hugh Waterson, A. E. Glanville, Harold James Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Myers, Thomas Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) Halls, Walter Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) Hayward, Evan Pennefather, De Fonblanque Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) Hirst, G. H. Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple) Hogge, James Myles Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) TELLERS FOR THE NOES — John, William (Rhondda, West) Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich) Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Mr. Mills
Estimates Committee
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (28th June),
"That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee, or by either of the divided Committees, to the House."— [ Mr. Hilton Young. ]
Question again proposed.
Amendment made: Leave out the words "either of the divided Committees," and insert instead thereof the words " any of the Sub-Committees." —[ Mr. Chamberlain. ]
Ordered,
"That the Committee do report any evidence taken by the Committee, or by any of the Sub-Committees, to the House."
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Colonel Leslie Wilson. ]
:In view of the Debate going over till to-morrow, will the Leader of the House say what business he proposes to take, and also whether there is any change in the business proposed for Wednesday?
I understand that it has been arranged for the Debate to finish at 8 o'clock to-morrow, and we propose after 8 o'clock to take the National Health Insurance Bill, Report and Third Reading; Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Second Reading; Summer Time Bill; Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Amendment Bill.
On Wednesday I shall have to move a Motion in respect of the Railways Bill.
On Thursday, should we be unable to reach the Treasury Vote in good time, I propose to take the Ministry of Pensions Vote.
:With respect to the business for Wednesday, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he can arrange that the Motion in respect to the Railways Bill is not taken at the same time that the Committee is sitting, seeing that the Committee has arranged to sit till six o'clock Otherwise, if it be taken as the first Order and when the Committee is sitting, all the experts, including myself, will be there, and will be unable to decide which way to vote on the Motion in the House.
:If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can arrange for us to get through the other business which must be taken that day, and to finish the Motion in respect of the Railways Bill at eleven o'clock, he will be doing a great service to us all.
:May I ask whether it is the intention, if possible, to take the Ministry of Pensions Bill on Thursday?
:No, no. The first Order on Thursday is the Ministry of Mines Vote, in order that discussion may, if it be desired, take place upon the mining settlement. If that be over early, I then propose to take the Treasury Vote. I can promise that I will not enter upon a discussion of the Treasury Vote at a late hour. Therefore, if we do not finish the first Order early, I propose to take the Ministry of Pensions Vote—not the Bill. The Bill will be taken on Friday.
:When is it proposed to go on with the Safeguarding of Industries Bill?
:We intended to have another day this week, but that appears to be impossible. We shall have to try and make progress next week.
:When is it proposed to take Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates? I was under the impression it was to be taken on Thursday. I understood arrangements had been made?
:I cannot say anything about that.
:The right hon. Gentleman said that on Thursday it was not proposed to commence proceedings on the Treasury Vote at a late hour. I take it he means 6 or 6.30 p.m.
:Yes.
:Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a Motion has been handed in before the Government Motion dealing with the Railways Bill, which takes precedence on Wednesday?
:I am not aware that any Motion has been handed in which will take precedence of the Government Motion.
:I understood a blocking Motion had been handed in dealing with this specific question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'clock.