I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The main objects of this non-controversial Bill, which has already passed another place and is urgently needed by the Admiralty and the Ministry of Pensions, is to remove any doubts as regards the legal position of the Royal Naval Hospital at Yarmouth. The hospital has had a varied history since 1811, when it was built to receive naval wounded from the French war. Since 1863 it has been continually used as a Naval mental hospital. During the 19th century the Navy and the Army dealt with their own patients in Service hospitals, and the Lunacy Act of 1842 specifically refers to the Royal Naval and Military Hospitals. This included the Yarmouth Hospital. Again, the Lunacy Act of 1845, which repealed the Act of 1842, referred to, "Any person confined State lunatic," and the expression "State lunatic" was deemed to include lunatics in Service hospitals.

In 1889 further changes in the lunacy law were introduced, and the Lunacy Acts (Amendment) Act of that year did not change the provision as regards State lunatics. This Act, however, never came into force, in view of the Lunacy Act of 1890, which repealed the Act of 1889 and many other Acts. The 1890 Act was a consolidating Act: It repealed the Act of 1845, but did not specifically make any provision for the care of State lunatics or for Naval or Military mental hospitals. The Act did, however, provide a very wide saving Clause for treatment of mental cases. In view of the doubt as to the legal position, it has been decided to proceed with this Bill and thus remove all doubts. It was felt that great hardship would be entailed by the dispersal of the present patients. Accommodation for mental cases throughout the country is limited and difficulty would be experienced in finding accommodation for cases at present at Yarmouth and any future Cases occurring in the Royal Navy.

Can the hon. Member say how many patients are there now?

If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed I will answer that question later. If the Hospital were discontinued by the Admiralty as a mental hospital the patients would have to be received in the county asylums and there would consequently be no saving in the cost to the State. The Ministry of Pensions are also extremely anxious to increase the number of cases they have under treatment in Yarmouth by removals from other institutions and thus to provide further accommodation for civil patients. The Bill makes provision for patients being received from the Ministry of Pensions.

The present number of patients in the Hospital is 119, of whom 57 are ordinary Naval patients and 62 are Naval Great War patients, whose cost of maintenance is borne by the Ministry of Pensions. The normal accommodation is for 213 patients, but this number could be increased to 260 by some reorganisation of the accommodation without any structural alteration. If the Bill passes it is expected that the Ministry of Pensions will probably transfer 100 to 130 of their patients from other institutions. Up to the present no voluntary patients have been received at Yarmouth, but Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for this. The provisions are similar to those in the Mental Treatment Act of 1929 and has been deemed advisable in view of the advances of medical science and the possibility of treating mental disabilities at a non-certifiable stage. It is not anticipated that wide use will be made in the near future of the powers taken under this Section.

I should also like to draw the attention of the House to Clause 8, which is intended to indemnify those in charge of the hospitals and their subordinates against any legal action which might be taken in connection with the past use Of the hospital. I think the House will agree that if these servants of the State were acting in good faith and in the public interest it is right that they should be thus protected. I hope that I have made the position quite clear and that the House will now give us the Second Reading of the Bill.

Notwithstanding the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty there is a great deal of disquietude in the minds of many people in this country in regard to this Bill. So far as I know, the Army has no such institution, and never had, and the particularly disquieting thing is this, that the Admiralty started this institution without any sanction of any sort or kind and it has been run in total disregard of the existing lunacy laws of the country. I need only refer to the Title of the Bill and to Clause 8 for confirmation. Clause 8, which, in my judgment, is the real crux of the Bill, explains, as far as the Bill can explain, that hitherto this institution has been run on illegal lines, and in the Title of the Bill it says that it is an Act—

"to prohibit the taking of legal proceedings in respect of the reception and detention of any person in the said hospital before the commencement of this Act; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."

That shows that a Government Department has been running a hospital for many years in total disregard of the law of the country and now comes to this House to seek an indemnity for any action they may have taken against the liberty of the subject.

What does it matter so long as the patients are well treated?

That is quite a new view on the benches opposite. I thought that they desired to preserve the liberty of the subject at all costs. In addition this institution, as we shall find when we come to discuss the Financial Resolution, is not a cheap but a very costly institution. The problem of insanity is a very difficult one, but in the diagnosis of insanity there has possibly been a more rapid advance than in any other realm of medicine. The one thing that has come from research into the medical treatment of insanity is this, that it requires very special care and treatment and skill. What does this Bill do? I make no imputation against naval doctors, against ship's doctors, but they are not specialists in this particular branch. I have no doubt that in their general work they are, as they have proved themselves to be, admirable in every way, but the whole theory of modern mental medicine is that you should have the most highly skilled and qualified specialists when you are diagnosing or certifying a case of this kind. Under this Bill there is to be no diagnosis by a specialist, it is to be a diagnosis and certification by two ship's doctors.

There is nothing in this Bill to secure that this asylum, or institution, like every other institution shall be under the General Board of Control even for inspection. I should have thought that the recent trend of events had made it abundantly clear that the people of this country will not tolerate an institution, whether it be an Admiralty or a Ministry of Pensions institution, where subjects of the Crown are kept without at the same time having adequate supervision by the General Board of Control, which is specially elected and selected for the purpose. If there is to be no inspection or visit from the Board of Control, the assumption is that the Admiralty officials will override all complaints from whatever quarter they come. I am particularly interested in this Bill because of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1.

I have no doubt that English members will speak from the point of view of English sailors, but I am interested in the Bill from the point of view of Scottish patients. Under the law of Scotland, we have very strict supervision, in fact, before anybody can be certified it has to be done by a judicial warrant and I protest vigorously against Scottish patients being liable to be sent to any house or institution or asylum without the formality which is enjoined by the law of Scotland. The only exception in this Bill, so far as the Scottish sailor or soldier is concerned, or as far as a Scottish voluntary patient is concerned, is that if he has been already certified the General Board of Control can prevent any interference, but in all other cases any unmarried man, whether he is a native of Lewis, of Orkney, of Inverness, of Camlachie or of Leith, can, against the law of his own country, be certified by two ship's doctors and taken to Yarmouth against his own wish if only the Admiralty can find a friend qualified in their judgment to give consent.

This is an inroad into the rights and liberties of the subject against which I must vigorously protest. Once a patient is taken from the security of his own laws and placed in Yarmouth what happens? He has no right of appeal to the Board of Control and the Board has no power to discharge him, when it would be without danger to himself or to the public. That in my view is a most retrograde and reactionary step, an unwarranted attack upon the rights and liberties of my fellow countrymen, and upon the rights and liberties of English sailors as well. Let me make the position perfectly plain. Under the law of Scotland before a man is certified there must be a judicial warrant for the certification. Evidence was given before the Macmillan Commission on lunacy, I think it is Command Paper 2,700, by Sir H. Arthur Rose and Dr. H. C. Marr, and the lunacy procedure in Scotland is described in this way in the minutes of evidence: mental patients, become the law of the land. I for one object strongly to a sailor, whether he is an English sailor or a Scottish sailor, being put in a worse position with regard to confinement in an institution and with regard to getting out of it. Accordingly, unless the Bill is radically amended upon the lines which I have suggested and which modern legislation has suggested, I shall oppose it.

I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with the protest which has just been made. On reading the Bill one has the impression forced upon one that this is a departmental Bill introduced for departmental purposes, and that it has nothing else to support it. As has been said, it is clear that we are now brought face to face with the fact that the Admiralty for generations have been acting illegally, and we are asked, not to bring the Admiralty to the bar, not to demand from them reasons why they have acted illegally, but simply to indemnify them for their past misdeeds and to allow them to perpetuate them. That is the first thing that comes to the mind. The second is the discovery that for some unknown reason it is now asked that we shall assume that a naval officer or man differs somehow or other from the ordinary human being, and that therefore, when he suffers from mental sickness, he must not be subject to the ordinary law for which the Minister of Health has assured the House there is no better alternative—that is, treatment under the Board of Control—but that because the man has at some time or other been attached to the Admiralty or the Admiralty Office he must not be permitted treatment for his mental sickness anywhere near his own home.

So far as my own area is concerned, I have had a considerable amount of difficulty in securing the release or the transfer of ex-naval ratings from mental hospitals in the South of England so that they might be taken to mental hospitals much nearer their own homes, where their relatives can visit them from time to time. So far I have never had any protest from the Ministry of Health that that course would be detrimental. They certainly have not been too willing to transfer the patient, but eventually the patient has been transferred, with satisfaction to everyone concerned. Now I am asked to support a Bill which says that if anyone from my own area joins the Navy in any of its branches and subsequently develops mental illness, he shall be taken to Yarmouth and to no other place. I am asked to believe that there is not any other place in the whole of the British Isles where that individual can be treated adequately.

I am not going to accept that position for a moment. I am not going to accept this Bill. I object to it in its entirety, and I suggest to the House that the only wise course for us to pursue is to insist that, after having recenty spent a great deal of time in passing an Act which we were told was the beginning of a new era in mental treatment, after having been told that we were setting up a new and a more efficient Board of Control—we all agree that one was needed—and after having been assured that the new order was not only a step in the right direction but a very big step, and that the House and the country could confidently look for much bigger improvements in mental treatment, we shall not now admit that after all we were wrong, and that so far as Admiralty people are concerned this new order that we have established is incompetent and insufficient, or that for some mysterious reason it is able to deal with every other class of individual in Great Britain but is not able to deal with naval patients. That is absurd.

Moreover, I object to the suggestion that we ought to set up two Boards of Control. That is what we are asked to do. One is enough, one ought to be enough; and so far as we are concerned one must be enough. I suggest to those who are concerned with the introduction of this Bill that they should give it very serious attention from that point of view and not from the point of view of the Admiralty. We are not concerned with the Admiralty at all; we are concerned with the people who in the course of their duties have developed a peculiar form of sickness for which there has already been established in the country a special service, and we suggest that it is under that service that these patients should be treated, exactly as are their brothers who do not join the Navy. The individual who decides to join the Navy presents himself for examination, and after a thorough and complete medical examina- tion is declared to be physically and mentally fit for service in the Navy. He then goes on service. In the course of his service he develops some form of mental illness leading to his certification, and, in those circumstances, we are asked to agree that he shall be sent to Yarmouth, and to no other mental hospital in Britain; that it shall be unlawful for him to be admitted to any other mental hospital; that Yarmouth is the one and only place to which he can be sent; that Yarmouth is to have not only its bloaters but these patients also.

I ask the Minister if he endorses the view that any naval rating whose mind has given way under service conditions should after a period of treatment at Yarmouth Hospital, be sent back again to serve under the same conditions as those under which his mind had previously been affected. I should like to ask the Admiralty if they are prepared to agree to the proposition that an individual whose mind has given way under service conditions is a fit and proper person to complete his term of service in the Navy. Quite obviously, from the ordinary normal point of view it would be assumed that an individual whose mind had given way under service conditions should be at once lifted clear of the whole range of Admiralty service and control, direct or indirect, and that there should be as complete a severance as possible from everything connected with the conditions under which that individual's mind had given way. Is it not likely, if we were so foolish as to agree to this measure, that we should be asked in the future to agree to the establishment of mental hospitals for the treatment of civil servants. If any case could be made out for a separate mental hospital for naval ratings surely the same case could be made out for separate mental institutions for any department under the control of the Government.

As far as I can see not one good point has yet been brought forward in favour of this Bill. It is a bad Bill from beginning to end and I hope that the House will not agree to give it a Second Reading, trusting to Amendments being made in it at a later stage, but will reject the Bill out of hand. I ask the House to insist that our system of mental treatment, bad as it has been in the past, and standing in need of revision as it does, should be revised as a national service, efficiently controlled, and a service including every patient. I ask that in this matter there should be no departmentalising, no segregation of one set of individuals from the remainder, but that we should exercise what power we have over the existing Board of Control to see that the institutions under that Board are made more efficient, that branches of this work not yet taken up by the Board are taken up by it, that the mental treatment service is brought to the highest point of efficiency, and that every individual in the country has the guarantee that the same treatment is available for all. I hope that every Member of the House will agree with the view that if one of his own constituents were to develop any such form of disease, while serving in the Navy or in the Naval Reserve, that man should be treated not at Yarmouth but at the mental hospital nearest to his own residence. I ask Members of the House to agree with the proposition that efficient treatment should be made available in all our mental hospitals; that we should regard the provision of such treatment as one of our primary duties, and that the House should unite in rejecting this Bill.

I do not propose to go into the question of the special application of this Bill to Scotland because that matter has been more suitably raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), but I think that the House is entitled to a great deal more information than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has given us. To deal first of all with the point of view of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley), I think his speech indicates a remarkable change in the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because when I was Minister of Pensions I was continually attacked by members of the Labour party on the ground that ex-service men were being put into what they called "pauper asylums" But that is the demand which the hon. Member is now making. He is asking that ex-service men should be put into mental asylums with the rest of the community; that is the very thing which was made the occasion of a campaign against the last Government.

When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was Minister of Pensions he asked me to act as chairman of a committee which went into this whole question. In those days there was no British Legion, but there were three ex-service men's organisations, the names of which are probably familiar to hon. Members. That committee sat for eight or nine months, and went very fully into the question of mental asylums and mental cases among ex-service men, and one thing about which all three ex-service men's organisations were enthusiastic was that there should be some separate provision for ex-service men in this respect, apart from the rest of the community. That is the view which the hon. Member for Bootle has so resolutely opposed. My right hon. and learned Friend and I were both faced with this difficulty, however, that you could hardly put up tiny mental hospitals all over the country for the small number of ex-service men affected in this way in each part of the country. We tried a compromise which often works very well in this country. We set up two special places to which certified ex-service men could go if their families so desired. That step was taken in order to meet the demand of the ex-service men's organisations for separate places—the demand to which the hon. Member for Bootle is opposed. When we started these places, however, it was found that many of the friends and relations of these unhappy men did not like to see them taken away from the neighbourhood where they lived, and there was some reluctance and difficulty about getting ex-service patients into these small hospitals which had been demanded by the ex-service men's organisations themselves. I think I am putting the case without any prejudice. We did start them, one at the Old Manor, Salisbury, and the other at Kirkburton, near Huddersfield.

It may well be—and I think it is the case—that the Ministry of Pensions may not be able any longer to retain one or two of these places, which I believe have worked exceedingly well, and it may be that the Ministry is very glad to avail itself of this particular hospital. I know that when I was there we were very anxious to obtain the use of this hospital from the Admiralty, but I suggest, with all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, that if the Ministry of Pensions want this hospital, it would be fairer to the House to be told that they do want it and what they want it for. I do not wish to complain of the absence of the Minister of Pensions, because I know that he is not well and that it is not his departmental Bill, but I think we ought to be told whether the Ministry of Pensions want this hospital for the purpose which I have described, namely, for having separate, special places to which to send a certain number of ex-service patients.

Finally, in dealing with this question of mental cases, I would like to say that the Ministry of Pensions has throughout fought against certification whenever possible. My right hon. and learned Friend and I took very considerable risks in not certifying any patient until the last moment. Whenever possible, we kept them out of asylums by keeping them in special places, and I believe that the Ministry of Pensions medical staff found, through experiments, methods which would be of use to mental cases throughout the world, by the steps which they took to recover the reason of those who were momentarily unbalanced by their experiences in the War. Nobody knows the enormous numbers of recoveries that were made by the Ministry of Pensions, and so far from there being any ill-treatment of the ex-Service men in this matter—I have seen appeals for subscriptions which suggest that nothing has been done for these men—I know that in my day and in that of my predecessor we were spending over £3,000,000 a year upon these cases.

The point that I make is that if the Government want to use this particular naval hospital for the Ministry of Pensions purposes, the House should be told definitely that it is due to some difficulty which the Ministry of Pensions have incurred at other places. We should not be left with so very little information as has hitherto been given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

The discussion has shown clearly that the House and the country are entitled to know the reasons for which the Government desire this Bill. As I understand it, they go back some 20 years. Up to 1910 there was no legal difficulty, and then legal difficulties arose. I think we are entitled to know what precisely those legal difficulties are if any persons now think themselves aggrieved by the action of the Admiralty, and whether any actions lie against the Admiralty at the moment for illegal detentions in the hospital. I think the whole House, irrespective of party, is always anxious when questions of mental trouble are raised, because the trouble is so subtle, so difficult of diagnosis, and so delicate, and the effects of removal to an institution of this kind are so painful to the families of those concerned that the House would not be doing its duty if it did not, on the Second Reading of a Bill, when it gets a chance, search the mind of the Ministry and ask in the most definite form possible what is the precise state of the case.

This is specially so in the case of a hospital like this, because it is a very old hospital. If I remember rightly, it goes back as far as 1811. It has seen patients of all types there, through many wars and many periods of peace between wars. I would like to ask the Minister, in addition, why it is necessary to have Clause 8, which gives the Admiralty complete freedom of action in the case of those who up to now may think themselves aggrieved under the law because of illegal detention, and, if it is necessary, why it is necessary to have that freedom in the drastic form of Clause 8. In my reading of any Bill I do not think that I have ever read a more drastic form of words proposed for the immunity of any Government at all. I understand that the Scottish Office does not raise any objection to it, and I think we are entitled to ask whether any report on the Bill has been made by the Scottish Office and whether the Minister knows anything about that. At any rate, I think we ought to safeguard ourselves. We can only speak once on Second Reading, and in the absence of any satisfactory answer I shall be bound to vote against the Bill. I therefore move my Amendment in order to safeguard my rights and the rights of the House.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to associate myself with the criticism that has been made with regard to lack of information supplied to us this morning. A historical review such as was given is not very helpful towards the better understanding of the Bill, and I am bound to be frank and to say that the explanation that was offered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite certainly helped to elucidate some of the main reasons why this Bill was brought forward. It appears, from what all who have spoken have said, that the Admiralty up to the present have been acting illegally, and it would be a very imposing sight if, for all those illegal acts of the last 20 years, we had the whole of the First Lords of the Admiralty in white sheets at the Bar of the House. At any rate, that reference in Clause 8 is a most significant one, and I certainly cannot remember in any Bill that I have read such an extraordinary reference as is made there.

I should like the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill to-day to give us some specific information about Clause 2, which has not been dealt with. Clause 2 states:

There is another matter to which no one has yet called attention. After all, the placing of a power like this in the hands of a military department, that two ship's doctors shall have the power to certify that a person is of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of, is a very serious matter. Any man in the Navy with any sort of independent mind might be discovered to be a fit and proper person to be detained in this hospital. Any man whose opinions were too outspoken or too unorthodox might also be considered to be a man of unsound mind and one to be taken care of, and I submit that in a military department that is a serious power and responsibility to confer upon ships' doctors.

There is another criticism that I want to make. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a serious matter not to have one service for this treatment. If it is at all possible, surely we ought to have a single service for the whole treatment of mental cases, and, assuming that this Bill gets its Second Reading, the Minister in charge of the Bill ought, at any rate, to be able to give some security with regard to that. I think, personally, that not enough thought and care has been given to this Bill before its introduction to-day, and that the House will be very chary about passing a Bill conferring such tremendous powers and responsibilities upon a military department.

I hope that the House will insist upon getting a very much larger amount of information with regard to this Bill before it comes to a decision. This is an attempt, clearly, to enable a department to over-ride the ordinary law of the land, and we ought to be satisfied that there is some very special reason for it, or that the position of all concerned is to be sufficiently safeguarded. It appears to me, on the face of this Bill, that the ordinary procedure of our Lunacy Acts is to be directly departed from, and that that is bound to have a serious effect upon those who are to be certified in terms of this particular Bill.

I would like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions, especially from the point of view of Scotland, where we have an admirable system in operation to-day which secures full consideration of each particular case, and the issue of a warrant before any individual can be enclosed. Has the Minister been in consultation with the Scottish General Board of Control, and is he in a position to state to the House that the Board has consented to the specific provisions of this Bill? I would also like to know whether he could inform the House as to the numbers of those who are likely to be affected under the provisions of the Bill? It appears to me to cover a very large class of men who are engaged in the Service, and others who are not on the active list. For example, in Scotland we have a great number of fishermen who rendered great service to the country during the War, and are still on the reserve list of the Royal Naval Reserve as potential mine-sweepers and so on, who are concerned in this matter as well.

I would like to know from the Minister whether this Bill has been assented to by the Scottish General Board of Control, and whether provision has been made to secure that the treatment of those who come under its provisions is to be kept in line with the provisions which are at present made for Scotland? It seems to me that this is a very big order to ask from the House, and the explanations we have received are quite insufficient to justify the House, at the present moment, in giving assent to the provisions of the Bill. I shall await a further statement from the Minister, but, as it stands, it appears to me that we should be abundantly justified in rejecting the Bill.

12 n.

I want to add only a few words from our back benches to the appeal made just now. There seems to me to be a very large measure of policy included in the Bill, and we do want a full measure of information. As a matter of fact, the Yarmouth Hospital is one that has been very little known.

When we were interrupted, I was endorsing the plea that we should have a fuller explanation of this Bill before it is allowed to be passed. Obviously, after the exhaustive analysis of the provisions made for mental treatment that took place last Session, when the Mental Treatment Act was discussed, it is very germane to the whole question as to whether a particular hospital that is devoted to mental diseases should be allowed to be continued or be closed down. There is a great deal to be said for the idea of closing down Yarmouth Hospital altogether. It has been frequently moved during the last 25 years, and it is infinitely better that the patients belonging to the Services should be treated as if they were civil patients in their own homes, and the cost charged to the proper contributing authority, whether it be the Navy or the Ministry of Pensions, or whatever other authority it be. That is the procedure generally adopted in connection with the Army. It has not been the custom adopted by the Navy.

We ought to recognise, of course, that there are considerable differences between the Army and the Navy in their ordinary life and customs that would suggest a different method of treatment. In the Army, life is more in touch with the ordinary life of the community, but the Navy has a more independent existence and there exists a certain family feeling that should be recognised in the mental treatment. Apart from the ease of administration and the cost of administration there is the question of the feelings of the patients and their friends and relations. There is a great deal to be said for keeping on a separate naval hospital if the patients and their relatives prefer it. I believe they do prefer it; there is a great deal of evidence that it is popular, and that they wish that it should be retained. But we have to ask ourselves whether it is a right and fair charge upon the public exchequer; we must look at the question of economy, as well as the other circumstances. As far as I can make out from the report of the proceedings in another place, the institution is not half full, and therefore is not being run in the most economical way. I imagine that this Bill is intended to help fill up the vacant places, and that would spread the overhead charges. I presume the cost would be borne to a considerable extent by other funds, especially the Pensions Fund.

There is another consideration, which might probably be met by this remark; owing to the late war we have more than the ordinary number of patients, and therefore the present state of affairs is a passing phase, although I fear it will take many years for it to pass. Therefore, it may be argued that this is a good provision to make for the next 10 or 20 years, when the matter can be reviewed again. I should be doubtful of asking the House to take any permanent decision, because with the great increase of institutions for mental treatment which is bound to take place under the Mental Treatment Act and the Local Government Act, 1929, it is doubtful whether it would be right to bolster up an institution which was built a hundred years ago or so. On the other hand, in the present state of the finances of the country, we cannot undertake to go in for any large additional expenditure, and therefore, though awaiting any explanation, we may have from the Government bench, I am inclined to think it would be right to make the provisions that are suggested in this Bill.

The main provisions, as far as I understand them, are to legalise what has been done, because, as has happened in one or two other matters now before Parliament, the law is in dispute. The lawyers always will arrange it so that there shall be disputes. That is part of their profession. [ Interruption. ] Well, lawyers have their own point of view, just as doctors have, and that is the point of view of lawyers; or it may be that they are unable to frame the law so that it shall be watertight. I understand this Measure is to clear up certain legal differences, so that those concerned can carry on more confidently what has been the practice of the last few years. If that is so I should agree to the Bill being passed but with one proviso, and that is that we are assured that it is intended to improve the Yarmouth Hospital in the interests of the patients. From a superficial inquiry I understand that the equipment, the accommodation and the general provisions at the hospital are not on the same basis as they are in ordinary civil mental hospitals at the present day. We ought not to be satisfied with a general report from the Admiralty that the hospital has been inspected and that all is well, because of course they would naturally make a general report in that way, we ought to have an undertaking that they will bring the hospital up to the average of the ordinary civil mental hospital in the matter of accommodation, equipment and general maintenance. With such an undertaking there may be a case for passing this Bill, but there certainly is no case for passing it without a good deal fuller information.

After hearing the last speaker I am more doubtful about this Measure than I was before. We have heard from him that this is a Bill to legalise something which has been wrong. All the morning we have been hearing that something has been wrong, that someone has been detained who ought not to have been detained, and that if this Bill passes they will be prevented from securing redress for having been illegally detained. I have paid a visit to this hospital and I have nothing but praise for those in charge of it and the work upon which they are engaged, but it is with something of a shock that I hear that it is possible that people may have been detained there for years and years without the hospital having had any right so to detain them. If anybody has been wrongly detained in one of these institutions even for one day, whoever is responsible ought to be dealt with as severely as possible, ought to be made to pay as heavily as possible. I say that with some feeling, because I remember a case in which I had to play some part and which makes me doubtful about medical certificates which declare that people are of unsound mind. I have known cases in which medical men have actually certified a patient for removal when if only some civilian had had an opportunity of seeing the patient there would have been no removal at all. I am not at all happy about this power being in the hands of the medical fraternity, who are wonderfully fond of making experiments with these people and getting them detained.

I press very strongly to know who have been detained, and why it is that not until this year have we wakened up to the fact that people have been detained in the hospital who had no right to be kept there at all. I wish to know why it is that there seems to be no desire to introduce a method of voluntary treatment at that particular institution? I can assure the late Minister of Pensions that I am one of those who object to any ex-service man being placed in an institution of that kind. The complaint is that the Admiralty are placing men who have gone through the Service into these institutions whereas they should have treatment in some private institution over which the Government have some control, and such institution ought not to be far removed from the homes of the patient in order that they may remain in touch with their own families. Another point I wish to raise is in regard to Clause 2 and the method adopted in order to have people detained. It looks simple to provide that these men shall be detained in the hospital at Yarmouth, but I hope that there will be something more required than the certificate of two doctors in the Navy before any man is detained in that institution. Someone else should see the man in order that we may prevent people being detained in the way suggested.

I think I can give a satisfactory answer to the questions which have been put to me by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate the interest which is being taken in this Measure. Some hon. Members who have put questions to me were not present when I made my opening statement, and I think when they read that statement they will find that their questions have already been answered. This hospital has been in existence since 1811, and it has been a mental institution ever since 1863. It has always been a voluntary hospital, and that has been made explicit in the Bill. There is no question of compelling anybody to go there against their will or against the will of their friends or relatives. Probably a man in the Royal Naval Reserve would not be eligible, and it is clear in the Bill that only long-service men are referred to. In the case of the reservist it is laid down that his relatives may make application for him to be sent to Yarmouth Hospital, and, if he is not sent there, he can go into any other institution. We are dealing primarily with long-service men, that is those who come within the condition of 10 or more years' service.

In Clause 1, Subsection (2), paragraph ( c ), it is laid down that—

"( c ) persons serving in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who are, in the opinion of the Admiralty, suffering from unsoundness of mind attributable to their service."

Surely that means that the Bill applies to the Royal Naval Reserve.

There seems to be am absolute safeguard in that Sub-section, because there may be some who have fulfilled the conditions of service and who are in receipt of pensions. It is clear that it is voluntary. If a Reservist became of unsound mind at Ross and Cromarty he would be sent to the nearest hospital unless his relatives made an application on his behalf that he should be sent to Yarmouth. After having been certified as being of unsound mind, the man would be sent to the nearest hospital, and would afterwards be removed to Yarmouth Hospital unless any objection had been raised.

There seems to be some confusion between paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ). I understand that the contention of the hon. Gentleman is that paragraphs ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ) are governed by paragraph ( d ), that is to say, that people cannot be sent to Yarmouth unless they are persons covered by paragraph ( d ), namely:

"persons who having served in any of the forces mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, have been awarded a pension for life and are; in the opinion of the Admiralty, suffering from unsoundness of mind attributable to their service."

It does not seem to me that that excludes paragraph ( c ), which clearly stands by itself. Sub-section (1) begins by referring to cases where it appears to the Admiralty that any such person as is mentioned in the next succeeding sub-section is of unsound mind, and so on, and paragraph ( c ) of Sub-section (2) relates to:

"persons serving in the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, who are, in the opinion of the Admiralty, suffering from unsoundness of mind attributable to their service."

The confusion is probably due to some failing on my part. Paragraph ( c ) is merely a covering provision. It does not mean that all people in the Reserve are provided for in this Bill; the people provided for in this Bill are those who have done service and have retired on life pension, or those whose affliction is attributable.

This is one of the most important points. I should surely have said that a person in the Royal Naval Reserve is just exactly a person who is receiving such a sum as has been mentioned. He is, as far as I understand, a reservist. Surely that is a definition of a reservist—a person serving in the Reserve who undergoes training and receives an annual sum.

Would the hon. Gentleman give an absolute definition of what is meant by "serving in the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve"? It all depends upon what serving actually means.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman two further questions? Supposing that there is a Scottish reservist serving ashore in Cromarty or at any place on the coast, is he going to be certified, as enjoined in the law of Scotland, by judicial warrant, or is he not? That is a very important matter for these men. In the second place, under Clause 3 of the Bill, is he going to be entirely under the Admiralty and without the right of appeal to the Board of Control? That also is very important. All hospitals which are not on the strength are subject to inspection by the Board of Control, and I should resent a man being sent into any hospital, naval or otherwise, without the Board of Control having the right of inspection.

I will deal with that point if it is in order. The position quite clearly is that every rating in the Navy is not eligible to come under this Bill. He must have done sufficiently long service to qualify for a pension or the affliction must be attributable. The same applies to those who are in the Naval Reserve. With regard to Scotland, if any of these people are in Scotland they are certified according to the Scottish law. This Bill has been submitted to the Scottish General Board of Control, and they are satisfied that in the Bill everything with which they are concerned is safeguarded. It has always been possible, and still is possible, for the relatives themselves to ask that the patient be transferred elsewhere. The point that I want to put is that this Bill is earnestly desired by people concerned with the Navy. They desire that we shall maintain this particular hospital, which has always been open to them. It is also desired by the Ministry of Pensions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) asked whether there was some arrangement to meet the needs of the Ministry of Pensions. In August next, Kirkburton closes down, and, instead of providing another institution, we have this institution, which is fully equipped and quite up to date, and the Ministry of Pensions are anxious that it should be prepared in readiness for them, so that their patients may then be transferred to it.

The hon. Gentleman says that this hospital is fully equipped and quite up to date. Can he give me definite evidence of that from inspection reports?

I could not give that now, but perhaps I might make a general statement, and later on, during the Committee stage, we can go into more detail. When the question was raised some time ago as to whether or not Yarmouth Hospital should be maintained, the Board of Control made very strong recommendations to the Admiralty that the hospital should be retained. The Board of Control do inspect the hospital, and one member of the Board, Sir Hubert Bond, is consultant to the Admiralty in respect of the hospital itself. The Board have always inspected the hospital, and it is still open to them to visit it. There is no attempt whatever to evade the ordinary public obligations, but one of my hon. Friends rather made the point that there are more familiar associations and more of a home atmosphere for naval people treated in such circumstances. This hospital has rendered good service, and by means of it we are able to avoid sending pensioners from the Great War to ordinary general hospitals. That, I submit, does put the matter in a rather different position from what has been suggested. There is no question whatever that these people must go to Yarmouth and can go to no other place. If their relatives or friends do not want them to go to Yarmouth, they can go elsewhere.

May I ask, with regard to the latter portion of Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, which says that:

"the Admiralty may, if they think fit, order that he be removed to and detained as a patient at the Royal Naval Hospital at Great Yarmouth."

whether that does not mean that the patient or the friends of the patient have no option?

My hon. Friend must go on to Clause 2. It is subject to Clause 2. It is necessary to have that provision in the first instance, but, if he has been removed there, and if his relatives or friends object to his remaining there, then they have a right to make application to have him transferred anywhere they like. That can be done. There is no intention whatever of detaining people in this hospital against their will. We are simply endeavouring to fulfil a need which we know is felt by persons associated with the Service, that their people should be treated under familiar conditions.

With regard to some other suggestions which were made, and which, if I may say so, I think were not quite in good taste, as to the competence of the medical officers, I may say that the medical officers at Yarmouth have all had experience in civil mental institutions, and are chosen with special regard to their qualifications, so that it may be said on the whole that the opportunities of the men of the Navy, and those pensioners who are on the Ministry of Pensions fund arising from the Great War, will be very much better and more carefully looked after—if that be possible—than in institutions which are used for general patients, because this institution has been looked upon more or less as a family institution, with all the qualifications and everything else that is necessary to maintain it as such.

There is no question whatever of a man being put into Yarmouth Hospital, certified as cured by the naval medical officer, and then going back to the Navy. He will be invalided out of the Navy, and I hope there will be no suggestion such as was rather implicit, if not explicit, in one speech this morning, that there is some idea of patching a man up and then putting him back into the Navy. I cannot help repeating again that there are no compulsory provisions whatever. With regard to the legal difficulty, a lot of very fantastic cases have been given by some hon. Members about detaining people against their will, which reminded one very much of the story of Valentine Vox that one read in one's boyhood days. Our legal difficulty is more technical than otherwise. In fact, it is very much akin to that dealt with by the Bill which we passed so hurriedly through the House the other day, relating to contracts between Members of Parliament and the State. The only difficulty about this matter is that it is not clear, and there is just a possibility that we might have been acting illegally, because this is a State-aided institution and not a rate-supported institution. That is the only difficulty.

No action lies at the moment?

None whatever. The only possibility is that people might think there was something to be got out of that technical difficulty, and try to take us into court. The institutions that I mentioned at first were State mental institutions, but they have all come under the control of local authorities in one way or another. Yarmouth, however, is still, and always has been, a State-aided institution, and there is just a doubt, such as lawyers do raise sometimes, as to whether we have not been committing a technical illegality. In order to safeguard ourselves against anything of that kind, we ask that this Bill should be passed, and all the formidable wording to which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has drawn attention is merely the way that lawyers have. It safeguards the position, so far as they can see, in every aspect, and it is not really so terrible as it looks on paper. I hope it is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) that no one will be detained against his will; it will always be voluntary. The only question is as between a rate-aided and a State-aided institution.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to refer to Clause 3, which provides that the Admiralty doctors are alone to decide whether a man shall be kept in an asylum or not? Ordinarily there is a right of appeal to the Board of Control. Is that right to be given? Will the hon. gentleman consider that position before the Committee stage?

Certainly, but I can answer it right away. It says:

"The Admiralty may at any time order that any person who is detained at Yarmouth Hospital under the foregoing provisions of this Act."

The "foregoing provisions" already make arrangements for the operation of the friends or the voluntary position. However, if there is any difficulty about it, I am quite willing to look into it and it can be met in Committee.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will allow us to have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. We are grateful to him for the explanation. It is a technical Bill, and it overlaps with his own Department. The discussion, I think, has justified itself. If we can have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdawn.

Main Question again proposed.

The subject, as far as Scotland is concerned, does not inspire confidence. Clause 2 (2) ( d ) contains the words "attributable to their service." Does that mean that, in finding out whether it is attributable to the service or not, two doctors from the ship or from some department of the Navy certify that the mental condition is due to the service? We know from long experience in the House in regard to ordinary ex-service cases that the phrase "attributable to the service" largely lies at the door of doctors. I am not saying anything against medical men, but there have been cases where certificates which have been given have in the course of time been proved to be wrong. When it says in Clause 1 that cases are certified by two medical practitioners, that may be two medical practitioners anywhere. When it comes to deciding whether it is attributable to the service or not, I want to know what doctors are to decide that. I do not believe two doctors are sufficient. My experience, like that of other hon. Members in ordinary ex-service cases, has given ample proof that two doctors are not sufficient. I have in my pocket certificates of two doctors to a certain family where a claim is being made in regard to an ex-service man. It is held that these two men's opinion is no good as against that of the official doctor who represents the Department.

I could not vote for a Bill that is going to confine this power to two medical men, no matter how able they may be. I am going to vote against every Bill, from my experience in the House, and from my work in regard to ex-servicemen, which confines it to two men. It ought to be more than that. In every other case where we are getting down to details concerning individuals, we exercise much more care. Even in the case of trying a prisoner we get a jury, so as to get a wider opinion, and in these days, when nervous diseases are becoming more and more complicated, I do not see that there is any justification for confining it to two medical men. I hope, before the Bill gets the support of the House, Members themselves, in the interests of the public, will see to it that the opinion of more than two doctors is required.

The question of two medical men does not arise in regard to paragraph ( d ), which simply refers to people who are already mental cases and are eligible for treatment in this hospital. The only case where the question of two medical men arises is precisely the same as in civil cases. In the first instance there must be two medical men who certify in order that the patient may be admitted to a mental hospital. After that, they are subjected to ordinary medical cure in hospital. If we change that, we have to change the whole law of the land in regard to mental treatment. There is nothing special in this as far as naval men are concerned. It is only in the case of a man on a ship at sea who is found to be suffering from mental disturbance that the medical officers there can send him for certification, and he will be removed to the nearest hospital. After that, he passes out of their care and is in the charge of other medical men. There is no question whatever of any differential treatment.

That is exactly what I am arguing for. I want a change made.

It is not possible to do that in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill accordingly committed to Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[ Mr. Ammon. ]

This is largely formal. It involves no increased burden on public funds. Possibly it will be less, having regard to the share of the Ministry of Pensions in the hospital.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, I think, is generally acceptable, and the present time is particularly appropriate for action of this kind, because it is certainly designed to improve the quality of our livestock and, therefore, to assist agriculture. This country—and, of course, I include Scotland—has long been famous throughout the world for the high quality of its livestock, and this Bill is designed to deal with what is to some extent a danger to our reputation and to the continual improvement of our livestock. The Bill has been passed through the other House, where it was subjected to a very fair and critical examination, and I think I can fairly say that, as far as political parties are concerned, there is substantial agreement, if not complete agreement, as to the necessity for a Bill of this kind. The real difficulty with which we are confronted is one which arises out of the growth of the dairy industry, and, unfortunately, in a good many instances animals of a very unsatisfactory standard have been used for the purposes of dairy cattle. The consequence is that in many of our dairy herds the offspring are of very poor quality now and then, and we desire to remedy the position in order to maintain, and, indeed, to improve the standard.

This country is a little behind some other countries. For example, in Ireland a measure of this kind, which licenses a bull used for breeding purposes and requires that it should come up to a certain standard of physical vigour and type, has been in operation for some years. It has had, I believe, a very marked effect upon the improvement of the quality of the Irish stock, so much so that the popularity of Irish stock in this country has increased materially in the last few years. Indeed, last year there were no fewer than 511,000 store cattle imported from Ireland, and, in the past two years, there were no less than 50 special sales. I think that it is generally agreed that the elimination of the unsatisfactory bull in Ireland, owing to the licensing system during the last few years, has contributed to the improvement of the quality of the stock.

1.0 p.m.

We propose in the Bill, after a due period of waiting, to adopt a similar system in this country. I need not trouble the House with the detailed provisions of the Bill as to the issue of licences and the local machinery for obtaining referees in cases of dispute and so on, which are, I think, generally agreed, and, as far as I know, have been settled, with one or two minor exceptions, to which I will refer, to the satisfaction of all parties. All the live stock societies, I believe, are emphatically of opinion that a Bill of this kind is required. A certain number of the members of the National Farmers' Union have not hitherto been very enthusiastic in their support of the Bill, at all events as far as its compulsory elements are concerned, although a very large number of the branches favour it. Therefore, we propose in the Bill that there shall be a two years' period during which it is hoped that there will be inaugurated a voluntary scheme to which the Ministry will give all the assistance it can.

Representations have been made to me that we might meet a considerable amount of the objection which has been raised, at all events in England, if we gave a somewhat longer waiting period. It is very desirable that in the operation of a matter of this kind we should re- ceive the good will and co-operation of all those concerned in the breeding of livestock, both the breeding societies and the Farmers' Union. I am now speaking for England and Wales. Therefore I am prepared, when we get into Committee, in order to try and meet these difficulties, to give a little longer time and to make the period which has to elapse before the Bill may come into full effect in this country three years instead of two. I have good reason to think that that suggestion will at all events meet a good deal of the criticism raised against the Bill. Of course, during that time we should co-operate with the stock societies and the Farmers' Union through our livestock officers in trying to get as complete a voluntary scheme into operation as possible.

The alteration which I suggest I might make would be that the period, or the appointed day, that the Bill should come into full effect should not be earlier than three years from the time of the passing of the Act. In this, however, I am not representing the views of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish societies are, I think, unanimously wishful that the Bill should come into operation earlier, so that it would have to be arranged between us for provisions to be secured, in the event of its coming into operation a little earlier in Scotland than in England, in order that we should not be receiving any discarded animals which were required to pass the test north of the border. Another provision of the Bill applies to the same class of animals coming from Ireland. Animals which have been rejected there, will not be received in this country for breeding purposes, but will be required to be slaughtered.

This is one of those modest proposals which has had attached to it the quite opprobrious name, "scrub bulls," but, as a matter of fact, it is a very vital matter, and in course of time the provisions of the Bill will effect an enormous improvement and will enhance the reputation of British cattle. When we remember that the production of live stock amounts, I believe, to over £50,000,000 worth a year, we can see what a very big issue this is as far as the interests of agriculture are concerned.

The expenses of administering this Measure when it becomes an Act will be relatively trivial. There will be a large number of animals to inspect, in the first instance. We reckon that there are 60,000 bulls which will require inspection in England, and about 8,000 in Scotland. There are arrangements here in which a small fee of 5s. is required upon the issue of a licence, and I think, considering the value which will in time to come attach to the holding of a licence, it is quite a modest fee. Provision is made for an appeal to a referee in the event of a licence being refused, and the fee for the referee's services is limited in the Bill. It is designed that the scheme of the working of referees should generally be subject to the advice of a special advisory committee which we shall set up representative of those concerned, and, if the expenses prove to be less than the figure mentioned in the Bill, well, everyone will be pleased. So far as the costs are concerned, it is anticipated that when the scheme is in full operation it may cost an extra £15,000 a year in England and Wales and £2,500 in Scotland for the inspection of the necessarily large number of animals, and the issuing of certificates.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to appoint extra veterinary livestock officers for the Ministry immediately the Bill passes in order to work the voluntary scheme?

It is our intention to appoint additional officers to assist in the working of the voluntary scheme. We shall work the voluntary scheme with as much good will as we can, as if the scheme were in full operation. I do not expect that for some time to come the cost in that respect will be very large, but in the course of a year or two no doubt a number of officers will be required to make the voluntary scheme effective.

One suggestion which was discussed in the other place was that the administration of this scheme should be on a county basis. There were many objections to that proposal, and it was rejected by a very large majority. The Ministry has a veterinary staff of highly experienced officers throughout the country, and those officers would be used. There are no county veterinary officers available for this purpose. It is very important that this work should proceed under the gui- dance of an expert advisory committee in order that we may secure a good standard throughout the country and that we should not have a patchy arrangement, which might work in one district and not in another. We desire to improve the standard of British livestock, and that necessitates a good uniform standard of quality and administration. I do not think I need go further into the details of the Bill. It is a Bill which is generally agreed to be desirable.

I say, at once, that as far as I am concerned, and I think I may say the same of my hon. Friends for whom I am entitled to speak, we do not wish in any way to challenge the principle of this Bill. I think there is agreement in all quarters of the House and among all sections of the agricultural community that the ultimate object of the Bill is one which can certainly be supported. This country is justly famous for its stock, and it is the preoccupation and desire of not only the Ministry of Agriculture but of all who take an interest in agriculture that steps should be taken to do what we can to raise the standard of that stock and to keep our reputation in the world. But when we consider a policy of this nature we must not only consider what is ideal but what is practical in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the National Farmers' Union and many farmers find great practical difficulties in giving their assent at this moment to carrying out the proposals in the Bill.

I would ask the House to consider the actual effect of the Bill on the ordinary farmer, especially on the small farmer. The Bill is aimed at the farmer who buys a scrub bull. Why does he buy a scrub bull? Simply and solely because he cannot afford a better one. I, like many other hon. Members of this House, have a fairly large farm, and I take great interest in my herd of cows and my stock. This Bill is not going to affect me or other large farmers. The right hon. Gentleman may send down as many inspectors as he likes to look at my bulls, but I have sufficient confidence in their judgment to know that I shall receive nothing but compliments from the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the animals on my farm. Those of us who are so fortunate as to have other means and not to be entirely dependent on what we get out of our farms at the present time are able to have the class of animal that we like to see, and which we would like to see on all farms, but there are a great many farmers at this moment who simply cannot afford to give the sort of price that the better-off farmer thinks it is good policy to give for his bulls.

This Bill is, in effect, to coerce the small poor farmer to pay more for his bull. In two years' time or whenever the appointed day may be, when the Minister has carried his Amendment, a farmer will not be allowed to buy a bull which does not satisfy the inspectors of the Ministry. A good bull costs more now, and the effect of this Bill must inevitably be to send up the price of bulls. The Bill is going to give an impetus to the pedigree herd movement in this country. That is an impetus which I am glad to see, but the effect of it will be that farmers will have to pay more money for their bulls, and they will be obliged to pay for a better class of bull. People who are entitled to speak with authority on this matter fear that the effect of the Bill may be to produce a temporary shortage of good bulls. The number of scrub bulls which will have to be eliminated is so great that there is some doubt whether it will be possible to produce an adequate number of good bulls to take their place in the required time. In any case, there is bound to be a rise in the price of bulls, and, therefore, the small man who cannot at present afford to pay the necessary price for a good animal may find himself put to very considerable expense by the passage of this Bill.

I would ask the House to consider the question from the point of view of the small farmer. The farmers of our country are to-day struggling with the greatest agricultural crisis known in history, a crisis which does not merely exist in this country but practically all over the world. During the past two years there has been a headlong collapse of prices, but what makes the agricultural depression so much more serious than any previous depression is the fact that no longer can the tenant farmer look to his landlord for the sort of help that he got in the depressions of the past. The landlord has been bled white by taxation and cannot help him, as landlords did in the seventies and eighties, and nine- ties If the farmer is an owner-occupier his position is even worse, as he has only his mortgagees to fall back upon, and that is not a feather bed in these times.

With this terrific fall in prices the farmer has to pay wages which are fixed by Act of Parliament, and the position to-day is that corn is selling at pre-War prices while wages are double what they were before the war. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to assist the farmer in this matter? Just before this acute crisis the Labour party told the farmers that farming must be made to pay, and then Lord Noel-Buxton, as he is now, was appointed Minister of Agriculture. For a whole year he sat in office but did absolutely nothing to assist farmers in their difficulties, and allowed German oats and Russian wheat to come into this country in unprecedented quantities. Although he said that it was deplorable, he did not lift a little finger to help the farmers. I must pay the right hon. Gentleman the compliment that he has stirred things up a bit since he came into office. He announced his policy as soon as he was appointed, and in order that greater importance should attach to it he got the acting Prime Minister to make the announcement on his behalf. This is the message of hope which the right hon. Gentleman brought to the small farmers for whom I am speaking. The acting Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st August announced that—

The right hon. Member cannot go into the question of the cereal growing policy of the Government on this Bill.

I am not going to discuss the cereal policy of the Government, but I think we are entitled to point out why the Amendment on the Paper—to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"this House is of opinion that, in view of the acute depression existing in agriculture, the introduction of a compulsory measure is inopportune, and urges His Majesty's Government to accept the offer of the National Farmers' Union to collaborate at once in a voluntary scheme of live-stock improvement"—

which I believe is technically out of order, represents our attitude on this question. While we are not opposed to the principle of the Bill we feel that the present economic condition of farmers is such that they cannot afford the added expense which this Bill will inevitably place upon them, and I am drawing the attention of the Government to the fact that they absolutely failed to deal with the agricultural crisis which threatens farmers at the present moment. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to implement the policy? Absolutely nothing. Instead, he has introduced three Bills. First, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill—

I think the Noble Lord is going a little wide of the Bill.

Surely I am in order in pointing out the onerous nature of the charges which the Government are laying upon the farmers of this country, and that is all I am doing—

Do I understand the Noble Lord to suggest that a five shillings licence fee is regarded as an onerous charge on agriculture?

No, and I have made no complaint against the licence, but I am pointing out that the effect of this Bill will be to force farmers, who at the present moment cannot afford to pay for a good bull, to buy an animal which is already more expensive than he can afford, and that it will still further increase the price of good bulls because there will be a temporary shortage directly the appointed day is reached. Therefore, the poor farmer will be obliged to pay more money than he can afford. That is our objection to this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture has done absolutely nothing to put farmers in a better economic position to enable them to afford the luxury of a superior animal. The Bill will undoubtedly cost the man who at present buys, a cheap bull more, it will oblige him to pay more money than he can afford, and it is going to send up the price of good animals.

In these circumstances, when the Government have shown the most cynical disregard of its election pledges and the pledges they gave to the farmers, when they have done absolutely nothing to assist the agricultural industry except to bring in three agricultural Bills, which are not going to put one penny in the pockets of the farmers but merely increase the charges upon them, they cannot hope for the same whole-hearted co-operation of the agricultural industry as if they had behaved fairly and squarely by the farmers. In accordance with his usual custom, the right hon. Gentleman in this matter is putting the cart before the horse. If he had done something to help the farmers first he would have been in a position to ask them, in their own interests, to put their hands in their pockets and buy superior animals, which at the present moment they cannot afford. He has not done that. Instead, he proposes to send his inspectors round to threaten with fines and penalties any farmer who is so ill-advised as not to come up to the ideal standard which, of course, we should all like to see.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot hope for success in this matter unless he gets the good will of the farmers. The National Farmers' Union have suggested a voluntary movement, and I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to co-operate with that movement and to install a voluntary movement during the period which elapses between the passage of this Bill and the appointed day. I am glad he has consented to that, because I think a great deal can be done by a voluntary movement. I want the right hon. Gentleman to keep his fines and penalties away as long as he can, to keep them in the background, until farmers can legitimately be asked to go to the expense of buying better animals which at the moment they cannot afford. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the offer of the National Farmers' Union to the full. Although he undoubtedly has the great majority of progressive farmers, especially the big farmers, and the best agricultural opinion behind him in the objects of this Bill, I do not think he will be treating the small farmer and the poor farmer fairly if he attempts the coercion that is provided in this Bill without having done something to put that farmer in a better economic position first.

We are precluded by the Ruling of the Chair from moving the Amendment on the Paper. We do not wish to go to the length of dividing against the Second Reading of the Bill on its merits; but I ask the Minister to consider whether in the Committee stage he could not accept Amendments that would make the coming into force of the Bill dependent on a failure of the voluntary scheme. It would be perfectly easy to put in an Amendment stating that the appointed day shall not come into force until a Resolution has been carried in both Houses of Parliament. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have the slightest difficulty in getting a Resolution passed in this House and in another place, and if that Amendment were carried farmers would have the knowledge that no coercion would be applied unless the circumstances at the moment warranted it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use the intervening time in doing something to redeem his promises and the promises of the Government, so as to make it easier for farmers to buy the better bulls which we all wish to see them possess.

I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill, because I regard its main objects as very important. As the title of the Bill implies, its purpose is the improvement of live stock. The Bill has been long overdue. I am one of the oldest members of the National Farmers' Union, and I can say that a large number of members of that Union are entirely in favour of this much-needed legislation. The Noble Lord who has just spoken evidently knew that he was advocating a very poor and weak case, because he had to ramble from the main point of the Bill to questions of Government policy. I would like to remind him that it does not pay to produce poor stock or to encourage the breeding of low class animals. Science teaches us that like produces like. If you have a poor class male you will have a poor class stock. This Bill provides against the minority, who are the culprits in this matter. It is the careless keeper of stock against whom the Bill seeks to protect the country. As has been said, we pride ourselves on our valuable stock. We have the finest stock of any country in the world, and it is our duty to try to maintain that very high standard. Yet in spite of that there is a minority who keep a low class male animal.

The Irish Free State has set a good example, and why should we not be prepared to follow it? Low class bulls from Ireland are being imported into this country and are being made use of here. The Bill safeguards us against that kind of animal. The Noble Lord said it was the small farmer who would be injured by the Bill. I maintain that it is the small farmer who will be benefited by the Bill. We are looking forward to more stock being kept. We shall have to keep more stock in this country without a doubt. Cereal growing is becoming unprofitable, and, as a result of recent legislation, the smallholdings Acts passed by recent Governments, and impending legislation, we are looking forward to the day when these smallholders can be helped to keep more stock on the land. The Minister assures me that if there is a scarcity of bulls the Government are prepared to increase the number of what we might call the State bulls so as to help the small farmer.

Did I understand the hon. Member to say that he thought cereal growing was going to be unremunerative in the future?

It is at present.

Does the hon. Member attach no importance to the Government announcement that they would put cereal growing on a remunerative basis?

Very great importance, but I should be out of Order if I went into the question of policy. We hope that in future, when we get our policy through, we shall deal with these matters, and I am very hopeful that something will be done to rectify the present position of cereal growing. As I have said, in view of recent legislation and impending legislation we shall be able to get more stock on to the land. I know that in Lancashire the County Council have some very successful dairy farms and nice berds of cattle. A well bred bull will be of use to them. They cannot afford to buy a pedigree bull themselves, but if they have the use of the State bull it will be of advantage to them and will improve their live stock. The large stock farmer is all right; he is in a strong position and can afford to get the best pedigree. It is to the credit of many in this land that they have such high bred pedigree stock. I think I shall be in order in mentioning that the present Speaker has the honour of holding some of the finest and purest blood stock in the country, and that he has been rewarded with many notable prizes, of which I am told he is very proud.

These large breeders are not the people who will suffer. But those who do possess this pedigree stock are not going to be selfish with it; they will be prepared to place that stock at the disposal of the small farmer and the smallholder for the purpose of assisting him. The standard required under this Bill is not a full pedigree bull, but a certain standard. The farmer or stock breeder who wishes to purchase a stock bull to comply with the regulations under this Bill will be supplied at Penrith market for a sum of 30 to 35 guineas.

I have another point to urge, and it is a national point. I am sure that if the Bill had gone, to a Division I would have been able to get Members on this side of the House to support it, and I feel sure that I would have been able to persuade right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to vote for the Bill. The purer stock is bred the more healthy it becomes, and the milk produced from that stock is of more advantage nationally to those who use the milk. That statement also applies to beef. One could go on producing arguments in favour of this Bill, but I think I have said sufficient of a simple and practical kind to justify the House in giving it a Second Reading. I trust that its provisions will become compulsory. I do not altogether agree with the suggested extension of time. I am quite prepared to have a compromise on this matter, and I would not object to an extra year, but, after that, I trust that the Minister of Agriculture, whether he be a Conservative or a Labour party Minister, will see to it that the Bill becomes compulsory.

I do not quarrel with the object of this Bill. I realise the desirability of preventing the use of unhealthy animals or animals unlikely to produce stock of good, sound, commercial value. I rejoice at one feature of the Bill, that which imposes a prohibition on Irish rejects. Last year no fewer than 1,400 bulls rejected in Ireland were sent across the Channel and were used over here. What is tolerated and encouraged in Ireland, as we have known very well during the past week, may be very good for Englishmen, but what is not wanted in Ireland is, certainly as far as live stock is concerned, of no use over here. We have always had a world-wide reputation for the excellent quality of our stock and that reputation is due to the fact that in this country we have the best farmers in the world and also the best live stock in the world. Nevertheless, we recognise that just as certain farmers are not quite up to the standard which we would like, so some of the live stock is not as good as it should be, and we recognise the need of having the best possible bulls in relation both to milk supply and beef supply, and particularly in connection with the national mark scheme, which is now receiving a good deal of attention.

We appreciate all these things, and we realise that some form of regulation may be necessary to attain the end in view and we are ready to assist in that direction. But in this matter at any rate, we believe in a policy of gradualness. The Minister appears to have forgotten an old Latin phrase, festina lente, and it is especially true that we should hasten slowly in matters involving compulsion as far as agriculture is concerned. According to the terms of this Bill, after the appointed day, it will be unlawful to keep a bull which is of the prescribed age unless that bull is licensed. In fact, after the passing of this Bill no bull will ever be allowed to die a natural death if it is in full possession of all its faculties. But I am not going to deal with this Bill from the point of view of the bull. I would point out that it introduces compulsion and that compulsion is very much feared and disliked by the agricultural community, and I would urge the necessity of steps being taken without delay to ascertain the facts of the case. Where are these scrub bulls? How many are there? How are they distributed geographically? What damage have they done and what are they doing to our herds?

I take it that the hon. Member is aware that the stock breeders societies have asked for a Bill of this kind for 10 or 12 years.

That is the trouble.

I would like the Minister to recognise the fact that stock breeding societies are primarily interested in the breeding and selling of bulls and that we have to hold the balance evenly between one section of the community and the other. I do not minimise the importance of the representations made by stock breeding societies, but I suggest that, sometimes, such societies are inclined to make the pace in these matters faster than is desirable. It is, I submit, necessary to investigate all these points and also to investigate the question of how these scrub bulls are to be replaced without disturbing existing agricultural arrangements. I welcome the suggestion of the Minister to the effect that the appointed day should be delayed from two to three years, and I hope that during that interval he will take steps to find out the exact position and ascertain the extent and dimensions of the problem. There is also the question of the officers to be appointed under this Measure. I understand from the statement with which the Bill has been introduced, that officers are to be appointed immediately. I hope that there is an adequate supply of suitable trained men to fill these posts, because it is necessary that these should be filled by men of exceptional qualifications. Their task will not be an easy one in the initial stages of this Measure, for there is the need of educating certain agriculturists in the advantages of using the best class of bulls.

It has been said that there is already a similar system in regard to stallions, but there is no real analogy. Stallions are examined from one point of view only, namely, that of their soundness and, moreover, if they are not allowed to travel, the owner of a stallion is still allowed to use him for his own purposes. But under the provisions of this Bill it is not simply a matter of soundness, but of quality and breed as well, and the owner of a bull will not be allowed to use that bull at all unless it is duly licensed. I think it is interesting to examine certain statistics and their application to this question. In 1929 there were 2,054,073 cows and heifers in milk and 658,478 cows and heifers in calf, or a grand total of 2,712,551 cows and heifers in milk and in calf. The number of bulls used for service purposes, as shown in the same return, was 80,271 which is a proportion of one bull to 33 cows or heifers. The same return discloses the fact that during the year 1928–1929 there was a decrease of 1,841, or about two per cent. in the number of bulls in the country. These figures disclose that there is not a great number of surplus bulls in this country, and they emphasise and fortify my argument in favour of a policy of gradualness and the need of allowing some time to elapse before this scheme is brought into full operation.

There is also the question of veterinary officers. We know that representations have frequently been made to the Government for support for the Royal Veterinary College. At the present time there is every prospect, unless some support is forthcoming from the Government, that the Royal Veterinary College will have to close its doors, and what, we ask, will be the effect upon the working of this scheme and on the livestock question generally if the Royal Veterinary College has to close its doors? Some farmers object to this Bill because it appears to them to violate the liberty of the subject, to dictate to them, and to prevent them running their own business in their own way. They fear that there may be a shortage of suitable bulls, and that for the bulls which they do have, they will have to pay more, and that they may have some difficulty in getting them.

A very large number of offences are created under this Bill. I believe it is right to say that no fewer than seven out of the 14 Clauses of the Bill provide various penalties, ranging up to as high as £20 for a failure which there may be to obey the instructions and orders in the Bill. There is also a fear in the minds of some farmers that a too rigid uniformity will be insisted upon by the bull officers who are to administer the scheme, and that the breeding of cattle will be forced into certain lines which happen to be the fashion and desirable in the view of these officers. What the farmer wants is not necessarily very high-bred animals, but a good supply of useful and prolific beasts. I think it would be very much better if the Ministry could get into as close touch as possible with the National Farmers' Union and obtain their co-operation and help. There is a good deal of prejudice in regard to this matter, which will have to be overcome and which must not be ignored, because, if it is ignored, the Bill will not work satisfactorily. It is for that reason that my hon. Friends and I tabled an Amendment, which has not been accepted by the Chair, but which sets out our views in this matter very clearly. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will go very cautiously, because in doing so, I believe, that that will prove the best hope for a satisfactory development of the objects which he has in view.

I would like to add a few words of congratulation to the Government on bringing in this very much-needed Bill. This country has been renowned throughout the world for the quality of its pedigree cattle, but if we take the general level of livestock throughout the country, I do not think we have so very much to be proud of. The fact is, I am afraid, that the highest quality of our livestock, which is mainly talked about, which has the great reputation, and which has largely built up the herds of the Argentine and herds all over the world, is chiefly confined to the hands of a relatively small number of people, and those only well-to-do people, who can afford to keep pedigree herds. Not only so, but I am afraid that the tendency has been, outside the sphere of those who keep those pedigree herds, for the general level of cattle throughout the country, in recent years, not only not to go forward, but even to deteriorate.

No.

I will give my reasons. There has been since the war a strong move towards milk production. More milk is produced than ever before, and the producers of milk who have milk contracts are more concerned with keeping up their milk supply than in the type of cattle which they produce. Therefore, the tendency has been all along,, in recent years, to slaughter the bull calves or to sell them for veal, and not to keep a type of bull which would really help towards building up the herds. I do not say it is wrong that their main concern has been to consider the production of milk, but it is time that some check was put on this kind of development, which I do not think, in the long run, will be to the advantage of the milk producer if it is allowed to continue. I am quite convinced that in the long run it will be to his advantage, as a good side-line, not only to produce milk, but also to produce good calves, which can be an additional source of revenue.

I quite agree with the sentiment which has been expressed on the opposite side, as well as on this side, that we have to consider in this matter the small working farmer first and last. Indeed, it is because I do not wish to see pedigree cattle confined only to the wealthy county families of this country, who have up to now been mainly the producers of pedigree cattle, that I should like to see all steps taken towards making the production of high-class cattle more widely diffused than it is at the present time. We have seen the most unfortunate developments in recent years. I know of livestock markets in the West of England where, last autumn, Irish stores were coming over and making £2 or £3 a head more than our own stores, produced in those areas, and I put it down to the fact that these Irish stores were bred from bulls that had got a licence, whereas many of ours were not. The constituency that I have the honour to represent in this House, and the county of Cumberland generally, I think, can be regarded as an exception, in this respect, that the farmers have taken the greatest care and interest in the quality of their livestock. I believe the tendency has been to keep always the highest and best class of stock; but that is not always so in other parts of the country with which I am acquainted.

Therefore, I think the standard which those who are going to propose the types of bull which is to be in use must not, in the first instance at any rate, be placed too high, otherwise it will make it difficult, as the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has said, for the poorer class of farmer to be able to get the necessary cattle. There might be, in fact, a shortage in the early days, as he suggests, unless there is considerable elasticity in the application of this Bill, but I think that can be very well provided for, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has put it forward that there shall be a temporary voluntary period.

I would like to suggest not only that he must not make the standard type of bull to be put in use too high at the outset, but also, I suggest, there is a good deal to be said for elasticity in the type of bull. For instance, you can get the dairy shorthorn breed. You could, perhaps, produce from him a bull which in the early years is almost indistinguishable from a scrub bull, and quite different from the type of bull produced for the beef breed, and yet the dairy shorthorn bull in the young stages may later on produce a type of animal which is quite useful in regard to milk production. Even one breed of shorthorn has different types which have to be taken into consideration, and I very much hope that when the panel, or whatever it is, is set up for establishing a standard, all these points will be taken very carefully into consideration. It is an additional argument for bringing into consultation, on every possible occasion, the representatives of those who are directly concerned in the industry, and more particularly of the Farmers' Union. In this respect I attach far more importance to getting their assistance than of the breeding societies, who have already got their particular standards, and are not so directly in touch with the small working farmer.

There is one other point I would like to raise. It seems to me that there is one burden in Clause 5 which might be rather onerous on the small farmer. If he wishes to object to a rejection of his licence, and wishes to call in a referee, he will have to pay, I gather, the sum of three guineas. In another place, I think the original Bill as drafted contained the sum of five guineas, and it was reduced to three, which is certainly an improvement, but I know that the farmers to whom I have spoken on this subject feel that even that is too much, and I hope that possibly the Minister may be pre- pared to consider this matter again in Committee. I will close again with the words with which I started in congratulating the Government upon bringing forward a Bill of this kind, because it will not only raise the standard of livestock in this country, but, most important of all, it will make it in the long run easier for those who have not been able to get the better class of stock to do so, and will diffuse and make more democratic the keeping of a better class of bull in this country.

2.0 p.m.

Coming from an area in which there are, perhaps, no scrub bulls, I sympathise sincerely with the theory of this Bill, and feel grateful for the delay before the worst features come into operation; but I deprecate wholeheartedly the principle of compulsion which is now being applied to agriculture, and the principle of interference which is falling upon our farmers as a new idea. Of late we have had the Marketing Bill and the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and now we have this Bill, each of which introduces this totally new policy of compulsion. Where farming conditions are so absolutely different in this country, where the soil and climate differ not only as between one farm and another, but as between one field and another, it is almost impossible to apply any homogeneous action, but therein lies the reason for the wonderful stock which this country does produce. The present time is surely the most difficult in agricultural history to throw upon the farmer any possible chance of new expenses, and we cannot deny that this must increase the value and cost of the bulls. The smallest farmer is likely to be the one most affected, and the inspectors will have to be supermen if they are to have a fair chance of judging whether a bull is really suitable for the purpose for which it is being kept. In the Border land we breed the world famous blue-grey from a black Galloway cow and a white shorthorn bull. That white shorthorn bull is kept under very drastic and hard conditions, living on Bent hay, possibly, of the hill farms, but having within him an intrinsic value for the colour of the calves. Honestly, the breeders of blue-greys look upon the value of their calves to a great extent by their colour, because the desired blue-grey colour represents a proper intermingling of the attributes of the shorthorn on the one hand, and the Galloway for hardiness on the other.

But these inspectors will have other complications and difficulties because there are other special breeds. I believe there are markets in the north where red and white heifers have a special value, and, of course, there are many districts which the dairy farmers are prepared to slaughter their calves and other difficulties are found amongst the breeders, who are breeding lines of pure blood in which they may only find one particular or desirable calf through several generations. These inspectors must cost money, and there will be also the cost of the police who will be serving notices when once this Bill becomes law, which will add to the expense that will fall upon the unfortunate farmer. I hope that it will be possible to make use of the Royal Veterinary College in this respect, and I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) that it might be possible for some help to be given to that college on the basis of this Bill. It is for reasons of definite interference, definite expense and definite compulsion in these hard times that I, as a representative of a constituency in the Border country, feel opposition to this Bill.

On the general principle, I agree that some action should be taken to get rid of the scrub bull which interferes with the breed of cattle, although I may have criticisms to offer on the way in which it is done. There does not seem to be a necessity for charging the small farmer with the fees that it is proposed by this Bill to charge. The penalties, too, seem exceedingly heavy. We are starting on a new line of policy in this matter, and I should have thought that the better way would have been to go gently rather than severely by charging heavy fees and putting on heavy penalties. The particular point which I wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister in charge—and I am glad to see he happens to be the Secretary of State for Scotland—is with regard to the Shetland cattle. My people have written to me because they are exercised in their minds as to the result that this Bill may have upon their cattle. The herd book is in abeyance; therefore, the bulls that are now being used are not in the book, and the farmers are anxious to know the line which an inspector may take with regard to the licensing of these bulls. Suppose he were to take a line that because they are small cattle, and produce a small breed of cattle and are therefore, inferior, he would refuse to licence them, it would be an exceedingly serious matter for the crofters and small farmers who own Shetland cattle. I am anxious to have an assurance from the Minister that no action that is contemplated under this Bill will at all damnify the owners of that particular breed of cattle.

The Amendment standing in my name and that of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) not being called, I have unfortunately no other course to adopt than to oppose the Bill. I do so in the hope that the principle which underlies the Amendment will be adopted by the Minister if the Bill be defeated to-day. I cannot agree with the principle of this Bill, although I am certainly in favour of the object of it. I have always had a great deal more trust in voluntary co-operation than in legal compulsion. We should be much more likely to obtain the results we all desire if we were to rely upon the voluntary co-operation which has been offered than upon the legal compulsion which is contained in the Bill. We should, too, be more likely to obtain the good will of those concerned if we were to ask and accept their voluntary assistance. It is unnecessary for anybody to say that we are in favour of improvement in livestock, in other words, that we are not against improvement in livestock, because the country is a stock-loving country, and the industry has the proud boast that we are undoubtedly the premier livestock country of the world. That is admitted, but I would point out that that position, although, as one of my hon. Friends stated, our soil may have something to do with it, has not been obtained by the use of inspectors. It has been obtained entirely by the efforts of private individuals. It would be better if we were still to rely upon that individual effort than start a new principle of relying upon officials.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price) made a charge that there had been a deterioration in the quality of cattle during recent years. I absolutely refuse to accept that as a correct statement. He cited the question of the milk-producing animal. It may be possible that to the man who has a beef mentality the bull used for milk production is not such a pretty animal as the one be would desire to use, but, if the hon. Member will look at the records of the production of milk per animal, he will find that that is very much increased—and, after all, the output and financial results are the main objects. Consequently, I cannot accept the statement made by him that there has been a deterioration in our cattle, particularly in the milk-producing animal. We have not been told by anybody what necessity there is for this Bill. There has been no inquiry, as far as I know, to show where these scrub bulls are, or even to say what a scrub bull is. There is a general concensus of opinion that we are really suffering from too much legislation and not too little. Consequently, it is unwise to promote legislation for something which we are not sure exists at all. I admit that I have seen individual animals which I have not considered suitable, and which others would not consider suitable, but the fact that there are isolated cases, or perhaps a few cases in a particular district, does not mean that we should set up legislative paraphernalia to curb what is on the whole not a very great difficulty. Until there is some inquiry and some definite statement as to the extent of the suggested evil, it is unwise to have this legislation introduced.

Very few people realise how much the question of feeding affects the condition of the animal. There may be a quality of breed, with the characteristics which the animal is able to transmit to future generations, but they may not be quite so obvious to the eye as is the result of that which enters through the mouth. Many breeders object very strongly to their breeding cattle being kept in too high a condition. It is a known fact that some men having two animals of the same breed and the same family, will feed one highly for exhibition purposes and for sale, but they will retain its full blood brother for use in their own herd and will take good care that the animal is not overfed. The casual observer might say that the one which is exhibited is far superior to the other. As a matter of fact, for breeding purposes, the one which has not been so highly fed and is not so pleasing in appearance is the more valuable of the two animals. We know very well that the milk record has entered much more largely of recent years into the question of agricultural production, but the appearance of the animal is no guarantee of milk record. Consequently, we are very much afraid that milk recording may not receive from these inspectors that amount of consideration which it deserves and should receive.

A great deal has been made by some speakers about the position of the small man. The farmer who is generally looked upon as the small man is not the man who will suffer, because the small man who has only a few cows has the advantage of the premiums which are given for bulls which are supplied by societies under the Ministry of Agriculture. The man who is going to suffer is the one who has some 15 to 20 cows. He is precluded, because he cannot have the use of these bulls. It may be that the man with 10 to 15 cows will be the owner of the premium bull, but he is not allowed to have the full use of it for himself. It must be shared among these smaller men. Therefore it is really not the small man, but the man in between the small man and the larger owner, who will suffer under this Bill. The case of licensed stallions has been brought in, but it provides no analogy, because it is admitted that there the owner has the right of use of that stallion whether he has obtained a certificate from the Ministry or not. The only restriction imposed upon him is that he cannot use that stallion for fee purposes and for travelling in the ordinary way.

The Minister stated that this Measure had received support from the breed societies. That is one of the reasons why a good many ordinary farmers are a little bit suspicious. Animals owned by members of the breed societies are not, because of their high breed, the animals which will suffer from inspection. They will take the eye of the inspector because they will be of the type to which he has been used. Those animals are, however, only a small percentage of those in the country. Scotsmen were referred to by the Minister as being in support of this Bill. Their animals are very largely of a beef type.

I hope the hon. Member will mention, in addition to the breed societies, the formidable list of agricultural bodies which are in favour of the Bill—the Agricultural Council of England and Wales, the Royal Agricultural Society, the Highland Agricultural Society, the Smithfield Club, and a whole list of others.

I am aware of that, but most of those are show societies. The Agricultural Council of England and Wales are not, but they are not a Council consisting largely of stock breeders or owners, and consequently I do not put the same weight on their opinion. Scotch blood is looked upon as beef blood; it does not indicate the type of animal which dairymen want for their herds. This Bill provides for a lot of inspectors. We are not told who these inspectors are to be, though that is a very important question. We do not know what qualifications they will have. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned veterinary officers, but I hope they will not be veterinary officers, because, although inspectors will need to have a certain amount of veterinary knowledge, agriculturists will not regard veterinary officers as the best judges of the stock to use for breeding purposes. A veterinary officer can judge of the soundness of an animal or treat it for diseases, but he has not necessarily had that experience with breeding animals which a man gains who has spent all his life among stock. An animal may appear to be very satisfactory from one point of view, but may produce progeny of a very different type. It is those with long experience in breeding who are the best judges of the type of animals to use.

An hon. Member opposite spoke about wanting a uniform standard. We do not want a uniform standard; that as our objection. Then another reference was made to "a certain standard." But there is no certain standard; it will be a very uncertain standard, and we want to know what the standard is likely to be. We do not want a uniform standard, but we want a standard which will allow of the best being selected for the purposes of the different breeds. With regard to the cost, I shall not take up time by discussing the 5s. fee or even the 3 guineas fee, because if the Bill gets a Second Reading those are points which can be considered in Committee; but the Minister has said that in addition the cost will be about £17,500. In another place the gross estimate of the cost was about £30,000. In the vast expenditure of our country those may not appear to be large sums, but I still believe, in the absence of proof that this measure is so necessary, that this money might be much better spent in assisting agriculture in other ways. It has been stated that the farmers fear that the price of the bulls may go up to a figure which they cannot afford to pay under present conditions. If there is a great necessity for this Bill, undoubtedly prices will go up; but if there were proper inspection—and only proper inspection—the price need not necessarily rise. What we are afraid of is that the price may rise because the inspection will not be judicious; if it were a bit drastic in the first instance, undoubtedly the price would rise.

The prospects of co-operation between the Ministry and the agricultural community in an endeavour to improve the class of bulls used would be very much greater without this Bill. There would be an economy to the State, and also economy to the industry. We should retain the confidence of those to whom this Bill is most likely to be of importance, if passed, and there would be the advantage of voluntary action; the information and assistance which could be given would be very much better received. Another claim which is made for this Bill is that a considerable number of animals are sent into this country from Ireland which are not considered to be satisfactory. Ireland is held up to us as an example, but how is it that all these animals which are undesirable come here from Ireland? Regulations to exclude such bulls would have been preferable to a comprehensive Bill like this. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be either withdrawn or defeated; voluntary effort on the part of the Ministry and the industry would give much better results.

I agree that most of the points which have been raised in this debate are more or less Committee points. The penalties and fees are rather heavy, and I hope that some alteration will be made in this respect during the Committee stage. It seems to me that this Measure is a long time overdue. I know that many years ago a Measure of this kind was applied to Ireland, and they have quite outstripped us in this business. I hope the Bill will remove, to a large extent, our difficulties in that respect. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to reply to this discussion. I would like to say of the right hon. Gentleman that he has done a great deal to further a Measure of this kind. I say this all the more willingly as I have criticised him with regard to other matters.

I have no doubt that it will give great satisfaction in Scotland if this Measure is given a Second Reading. In Scotland we have tried through the Department of Agriculture to improve stock breeding in various localities. If we compare the stock exhibited at smallholders cattle shows in Scotland, with the stock exhibited 20 years ago, it will be found that the difference is quite marked and that there has been considerable improvement. This is largely due to the efforts of the Board of Agriculture which has made it possible for bulls of a superior class to be provided in the various localities. Whatever criticism may be made in regard to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, it cannot be denied that it has succeeded in improving the quality of the cattle to an enormous extent.

That has been done under the ordinary law.

The fact remains that by these efforts cattle have been enormously enhanced in value because of the provision made by the State Department, and I welcome this Measure on behalf of the stock breeders of Scotland. I have received a letter from one of the principal associations in Scotland interested in this question wishing God speed to this Measure, and expressing the hope that it will receive the sanction of Parliament.

While many of us are in agreement with the underlying principle of this Bill, I hope that principle will not be carried too far. It is quite obvious that the tendency of this Measure will be to tighten up the standard and more and more expensive bulls will be required. If by this Bill breeders are compelled to spend more money in this way, it is only reasonable that the Bill should hold out some prospect of farmers being able to recoup themselves for this extra outlay. Undoubtedly, under this Measure the supply of milk will be largely increased, and we must consider the position of the milk trade at the present moment. Something ought to be done in regard to the large importation of preserved milk. Every year we are importing 116,500,000 gallons of preserved milk, and this is at the rate of about 350,000 or 360,000 gallons a day. In view of these facts, we must secure under this Measure that those who have to spend more money will eventually receive a better return for their milk production.

Exactly the same kind of thing occurs on the beef side. If bulls of a better quality can be found, then the offspring will undoubtedly be of better quality, and will produce finer meat. In this case, we shall have to find some way of compensating the farmer for his extra outlay. In the old days, the grazier in the North of England had a good market among the miners, and he got a better price when trade was brisk; but that market has now gone, and the people of this country are so impoverished that they welcome the cheaper imported foreign meat because it is sold at a price which they can afford to pay. It seems to me that the Government will make this Measure very much more welcome if they can show to the farmer that, through its application, he will receive some reward when he has done what the Bill requires him to do. If this Bill were accompanied by some proposal for the gradual replacement of preserved milk and bully beef by milk and beef produced in this country, it would do a great deal of good.

In view of the position in the United States and the vast amount of unemployment which exists there, it is obvious that there will be a demand in the Argentine for cheap meat and that may eventually deprive this country of half of its meat supply. If, in view of these circumstances, the Government of this country seize this opportunity to stimulate the production of beef, it will certainly be a great advantage, and it will be statesmanlike action which deserves the support of all parties. As far as I can see, there is no prospect of any sort of reward for the unfortunate farmer who does what he is told to do under this Bill. This Measure is being brought forward at a time when the farmer has literally not a shilling to spare, and I suggest that it would be a better course to postpone these proposals for a year or two, and meanwhile allow this matter to be dealt with in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union by voluntary efforts.

The Division which I have the honour to represent in the North of England is, as a whole, opposed to this Bill. We are entirely in agreement with the objects underlying the Bill, but as to the ways and means of carrying those objects into effect the people in the North are extremely suspicious. We are anxious that Clause 9, under which rejects from Ireland will not be allowed to come into this country, should pass into law as soon as possible. That is agreed upon throughout the country and in all quarters of this House. But, as regards the other part of the Bill, we in the North are of opinion that the object would be better accomplished by means of a voluntary scheme.

I admit that the Minister of Agriculture has helped us very considerably by his statement, in moving the Second Reading, that he proposes to extend the period after which the Bill will come into operation from two years to three years. That will go a very long way to allay the suspicions of those who are frightened of compulsion. The Minister, the other day, called me a troglodyte, and, at the risk of once more being called a troglodyte, I should like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that, for better or worse, I hate compulsion in any matters connected with agriculture, because the industry is so widespread and so far flung that the various branches, although they may appear to be the same, are really entirely different, and, in legislating for one branch of the industry, it is extraordinarily difficult to get fairness throughout.

As to my reason for being frightened of compulsion, this is a local point, which, however, I feel it my duty to bring forward, and I hope the Minister may be able to see his way to meet it during the Committee stage. There is in the dales of Yorkshire a breed of cattle which is known to those who have been in that district as the West Country Shorthorn. It is a breed which has been handed down from father to son for generations. It is not in the Stud Book, and I doubt whether it ever will be in a Stud Book, because I doubt whether those who live in that part of the world will ever frame themselves into an organisation and have a Stud Book. Nevertheless, these beasts are as good as any pure breed that exists in the country to-day, and, furthermore, in my view, and in that of the inhabitants of that part of England, we have in this breed the perfect article for the climate and the part of the country concerned.

There is another point to which I should like to refer, although I am afraid it is rather a Committee point. Under this Bill, the first inspection is to be by the Minister, through his inspectors, livestock officers and so forth, and I am in entire agreement with that form of inspection; but, following upon that, if the owner of a beast is dissatisfied with the finding of the livestock officer, he can appeal to a panel of referees, which, again, is nominated by the Minister. The fear that these breeders of West Country Shorthorns have is that, while you have, to start with, an inspection on behalf of the Minister, you have also a panel of referees nominated by the Minister to whom to appeal. I think I understand that what I am going to say does not represent the intention of the Minister, but it is the impression which the Bill gives. As the Bill is drafted, it provides that, if a breed is officially declared pure, both in the original inspection and again on appeal to the referee, then through the course of time, and only through the course of time, the non-pedigree breeds of which we are very proud in my part of the country might be edged out. That, I think, is a genuine danger and a genuine fear on the part of breeders in that part of the country.

I suggest that in Committee some Amendment might be accepted to ensure that the panel of referees, although nominated by the Minister, is really selected by the breed societies in the one case, and, for non-pedigree animals, by the National Farmers' Union, the agricultural committee of the county council, or whatever the Minister might consider to be the right body, he would then have at his centre in London a list from those various associations, and then, if an owner were dissatisfied with the finding on the first inspection, he could appeal to the panel of referees, and the Minister could then nominate a referee with knowledge of the particular breed in question, who would go and see the animal. If that were done, I am convinced that an enormous amount of suspicion would be done away with, because the owner would know that the referee who would inspect his animal on appeal would not necessarily be a referee biased in favour of one breed or another. No one is more in favour of the pure breed associations that I am, but I have the greatest sympathy for the other breeds which, in their particular surroundings and climate, are more suitable than any breed which might be thrust upon them. It is for this reason that I have intervened in this Debate to-day. I know that this Measure is unpopular in the part of the country from which I come, but, on the other hand, in view of the way in which the Minister has met us, I feel certain that, if he will meet us further in the way I have suggested, there will be confidence in that part of the country and the Measure will be welcomed.

I should like to say one word, if it will not be considered impertinent, to the Minister. In the case of all the Bills which he is passing through this House, and to which he is giving the whole of his Parliamentary experience and skill in order to get them through, the agricultural community, although possibly not in the way that I should desire, do owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he is working for the industry; but he must bear in mind the fact that he is a member of a Labour Government, and, as a member of a Labour Government, he is, before he starts, associated with the idea of State control and State ownership. Farmers throughout the country hate the idea of State control and hate the idea of State ownership, and, therefore, in any legislation which the right hon. Gentleman introduces, the less we can have of the Minister, the more certain I am that it will be a success and will bring about the object which is desired.

In the North we are in a somewhat different position from hon. Members on this side who have recently spoken. I understand that this is a matter on which agriculturists even South of the Border are not entirely unanimous, because, although my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Captain Dugdale) have strongly stressed the opposition to the Measure in their areas, I understand that there are areas and sections of opinion in other parts of the country, as to which my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will probably speak, in favour of the Measure. Leaving the question of agriculturists South of the Border aside for the moment, I merely wish to touch upon the position of those North of the Border. We are in a different position, since societies and organisations representing all shades of opinion, and not merely the show societies, have spoken and passed resolutions in favour of a Measure such as this. We do not by any means commit ourselves to the details of the Bill.

There is a very drastic provision further on allowing an officer of the Ministry to enter any place where he suspects a bull to be kept, which might lead him very far in places where he would be extremely unpopular. The Farmers' Union of Scotland passed a resolution in February in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the annual meeting of the directors of the Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland have also passed a resolution supporting it in principle. I think the move towards improving the ordinary cattle stocks of Great Britain originated in the desire of the House to do something for agriculture in Ireland, and the Congested Districts Board, set up by the late Lord Balfour, was one of the first practical steps that were taken along this line. The animals gained a great reputation and the phrase "congested bulls" became rather popular in the west of Ireland.

Premium societies have begun to deal with the matter and have been very keenly taken up North of the border. Figures given in a recent answer in the House show that, while there are 1500 premium bulls in England and Wales, there are no fewer than 900 in all in Scotland, that is to say, adding to the 600 odd bulls circulated by the premium societies the 280 that are circulated free for the benefit of the crofters by the Department of Agriculture working under the Congested Districts scheme. It is clear, therefore, that the smallest man of all is not likely to be prejudiced and that the medium men who are watching the operation of the scheme have, at any rate in Scotland, thought it would be advisable to extend it to the whole country.

The very germane questions which have been brought up by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond are questions of administration. Undoubtedly, if the scheme is unintelligently administered, it will bring great evil. If a breed was to be ruled out of existence, that would be a great evil. There is a great reservoir of unpedigree blood sheep existing from which breeds are occasionally brought into the stud book and from which a valuable reinforcement to the blood stock of the country is frequently drawn. Those concerned with the sheep stocks of the country know very well that the highly fed sheep is very often an unsuitable animal for general purposes. I should think it most unlikely that the Minister and his officers, and still more the agricultural body of opinion, on which the Minister must in the long run support himself, would rule out a sturdy sheep likely to be suitable for the hills because it did not conform to all the show canons—although the Bill does not apply to sheep—still more that they would rule out a definite breed like the West Country Shorthorn because it did not find a place in any recognised book of reference on the subject.

But in matters of administration we must trust the administration of the Minister and those who come after him, and we are entitled to assume that the Measure will be intelligently administered, all the more because we have what is so dear in this country, a precedent. We have the example of Ireland, where such schemes have been run, and I understand there is no suggestion whatever that they should be abolished. Ireland is a much more agricultural country than England. Almost every constituency is an agricultural constituency and many are stock-raising constituencies. If, in practice, it was found to be difficult or impossible of administration, without doubt the weight of agricultural opinion, which makes itself felt immediately in the Free State and in Ulster, would have insisted on the modification or the sweeping away of these proposals. No such proposal has been brought in. The only sweeping away that is done is the sweeping away of the scrub bull. The only place where the scrub bull repairs is in England and in Scotland. To suggest this is a burden on the farmer is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. The grading up of stocks will take many years to carry out, even under the Bill. It will not come fully into operation for perhaps ten years. I suggest to those who ask for further delay that they should think twice lest they prejudice the position in which the country is already placed. In Scotland there is a desire amongst the farmers to improve the breed of their stocks. We need to examine the matter further.

It is examined.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that he has decided upon it in advance to the exclusion of whatever we bring forward in argument. I should hesitate to think he was so deaf to argument that he would refuse to listen to arguments on both sides.

One interesting provision in the Bill is that exempting animals kept solely for experimental purposes. This whole question of breeding is almost an unexplored field scientifically. Breeding is the one great industry to which science has never been applied. It is carried out by the insight, the artistic flair, of the great breeders, and the small breeders also. It is a very reasonable thing that this Bill should be brought in and discussed by the House of Lords, which is a great example of genetics. I am not at all surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham desires to support the Bill, because it supports the principle of the aristocracy, to which I am glad to see the Labour Ministry is coming round, at all events for the purpose of animal breeding.

This whole question of breeding is one of the most interesting subjects. The Genetic Institute in Edinburgh will have much reason to be thankful for the provision exempting experimental stock from the provisions of the Bill. Consequently, I hope, before the scheme comes fully into operation, the principle of genetics may be more clearly understood than at present, because the instinct of the breeder, great or small, is much more trusted, and has proved in many cases more successful in practice, than the dicta of experts. It is in the hope that the experts will rely on the agricultural opinion of the country as a whole that I support the Measure, and it is in the belief that such support can usefully be obtained, and that co-operation between the expert and the practical man can be worked out by administrative skill, that agricultural opinion in Scotland has asked me to support the Bill, which I have much pleasure in doing.

It is often said that when the two Front Benches agree a Bill is a bad one, and on this occasion we certainly have the two front benches agreeing. The noble lord who spoke first of all was not quite in agreement; I thought that he was riding two horses at once. Certainly, the last speech from the bench below was in favour of it. I intervene for a few minutes, like other hon. Members from the North of England, to say, quite frankly, that in the North of England we regard this Bill with great suspicion. We are a little astonished at the attitude which parts of Scotland are taking up. I doubt if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) was speaking of that portion of the Border just on the side of Scotland, because we are afraid that some of our breeds amongst those hills and dales may be affected. We claim to be a large cattle breeding district and that we can sell our beef at as good a price as Scottish beef, and at a good deal better price than the beef produced anywhere else in England. We therefore claim that our opinion on these matters should not be neglected. We assert, not only in regard to this Government but in regard to other Governments before them that our point of view has never been considered. The Ministry of Agriculture look round about London and see what is required there, and never take the time to go up to the North of England to see the difficulties there and to study agriculture from the Northern point of view. That is one of the reasons why I have intervened in this Debate.

3.0 p.m.

The Noble Lord who first spoke said that we were all agreed in principle about the Bill. I beg to dissent. I am in entire agreement that we want to improve our livestock throughout the country, but I do not agree with the principles of this Bill, in particular, because, as a Conservative, I dislike the principle of compulsion. The Minister of Agriculture would be well advised to put compulsion as much in the background as possible. Farmers have still a recollection of compulsion during the War, and for many generations it is going to be handed down. We all remember what a failure it was. Farmers object to any form of compulsion. We feel it rather hard in the North of England that we who breed cattle for beef, and consider that we do it well, should have a Bill like this, with its inspectors and cost, thrown upon us because certain dairy farmers in the South of England do not look after their method of breeding. I think that we ought to receive more consideration. I will turn for a moment to the Bill itself. It is said that the Bill will hit most hardly the small farmer. I think it will. It will make the cost of bulls dear. He will be frightened by the considerable list of penalties, which, I think, are far too severe. If the Bill is to be effective throughout the country districts, it must be as simple as possible. You cannot have a Bill too simple if it is to be understood in agricultural districts. Of all the forms of complicated drafting, I think this Bill is about the limit. We had a very bad period in this House round about 1926, and every one on that side of the House in those days complained about the way in which the Bills were drafted. I believe that matters have been getting a little better, but this Bill goes right back to the worst standard of drafting we have had for many a day in this House. All kinds of unnecessary bits of drafting are in the Bill. I cannot understand why in the first Clause it should be so necessary to provide that: they bought the bull or if they have changed their address. There is every kind of minor detail which I should have thought it would have been entirely unnecessary to put into an Act of Parliament. A fact which causes suspicion is that the Minister in London is to be informed and it looks therefore as if the Ministry are going to try and make a central register of bulls in London, for Northumberland, Durham, Devonshire, Cornwall and for Scotland. I cannot see any practical value of having a central register in London. It will only give a few clerks a certain amount of work, and will not do anything towards the improvement of agriculture. The best thing the Minister can do, as far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned is to go through the Bill again very carefully, and see if it cannot be made more intelligible to farmers. If he could knock out three-quarters of the Bill by redrafting, I think that he would make it a better Measure and one with a better chance of working successfully. From my point of view, I would far sooner see the Bill with Clause 9 and nothing else in it, but I think that that is too much for which to hope. I would add my voice to that of the Noble Lord, who, at the end, pleaded for delay and hoped that compulsion would not be put too much in the forefront, and that, if the Bill is to be brought into operation in three years time, it will only be brought into operation upon a Motion passed in this House and in another place.

I do not want to start a family quarrel at all, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) has cast some aspersions on the dairy farmers of the South of England, and I really think that on their behalf I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture that I am very glad that he is bringing in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) seemed to think that there was no demand or call for the Bill. I remember seven or eight years ago—at a meeting of my county agricultural committee—meeting Mr. Kendrick of the Farmers' Union, and discussing the matter with him. Since then the only body which has objected to the Bill has been the National Farmers' Union, and their objection is very much less than it was eight or nine years ago.

Only the Farmers' Union of England; the English branch.

The English branch. The Council of Agriculture for England have lately been criticising the Minister of Agriculture for not taking their advice more often, but he has now taken their advice and that of the Advisory Committee, as did his predecessor, who did not have time to bring in this Bill. There has been a very general demand for a Bill of this kind for a long time. It is encouraging when we see what has happened in Ireland. When the scheme was initiated in Ireland, three or four years ago, the same thing happened that is happening in this country to-day in regard to complaints from the small farmers. The small farmers in Ireland were very fearful of the effects of the system, but one of the hon. Members from Ireland, to whom I have spoken to-day, has told me that at the present time one never hears any grumbling from the Irish farmers. They are very glad that the system has been introduced, because it is bringing them more money. I appreciate the fears of the small farmers in this country, but I would ask them to remember that when they do buy a bull after this Bill comes into operation they will get more money for the progeny of that bull than they get at the present time for the calves. If bulls go up in price they will be able to get more money, I look at this matter from a bigger point of view.

The part of the agricultural industry that brings in more money to this country as a great national aspect is livestock breeding. That was brought home to my mind when I visited South Africa. I realised then the great value of stock breeding, and that it was the duty of any Government of any nation to see that livestock breeding was kept up. I remember, that in the South African War I captured one of those big ponies of the type that was bred in Basutoland before the South African War. In those days you had to give £5 to £10 more for a Basuto-bred pony. Fifteen years ago I went to Basutoland and I found that that breed of Basuto pony had disappeared. I saw a lot of little stallions about everywhere, but none of them had been looked after, and practically the whole of the Basuto-bred ponies had gone out of existence in 25 years. That instance serves to indicate the harm that scrub bulls may do in this country and to emphasise the necessity of our taking steps to put the matter right. The late Lord Chaplin said that the greatest agricultural asset that we had in this country was stock breeding. We breed the finest horses, the finest bulls, the finest pigs, the finest cattle and the finest sheep. Wherever you go all over the Empire you see English rams, English bulls and English stallions, and they are the foundation of stock in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. They are a national asset and we should do our best to keep up our reputation in this respect. For these reasons, I welcome the Bill.

I join in the general chorus of approbation which has fallen upon the Government to-day. To-day is a day when they do need a little encouragement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Have a look at the tape. We are glad that they have found time among the welter of Bills dealing with the unemployment problem to bring in so useful a Measure as this. I do definitely believe it to be a useful Measure. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite must not think that because a Measure such as this has done almost startling good in Ireland he is going to get similar results here. He is not. The average of cattle in this country is very much better to-day than the average of the pre-war cattle in Ireland. He must not think that the use of pedigree bulls or really good bulls can make a marked improvement in our beasts in the same way as the use of fairly good bulls in Ireland has made a marked improvement in the course of three or four generations.

The right hon. Gentleman is on the right line, but he is dealing with quite a simple problem in an extraordinarily cumbersome way. The House has not often been faced with a Bill so long, so involved, so inquisitorial, and so full of penalties, to deal with what is not really a very complicated question. Those who are interested in agriculture generally develop a freedom of mind which is, of course, quite repugnant to the Whitehall temperament, and I can well understand that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers felt some satisfaction that in drafting this Bill they had properly admonished us all. Under Clause 1 a farmer may be fined £20; under Clause 3, £5; under Clause 4, £20; under Clause 6, £5 a day for one offence, and £20 for another; and in addition the expenses of the Ministry must be paid; under Clause 7, another £5; under Clause 8, £20, or three months in gaol; and under Clause 10 the Minister takes final powers to impose any penalty he likes. The farmer may pay in fines and penalties £100, serve three months in gaol, have his bull slaughtered by the officers of the Ministry and then pay the expenses of the inspectors who have done all this for him. No doubt it is all for the good of the farmer, and I am quite sure that he will appreciate it.

Coming to the parts of the Bill which deal with the details of the bull, I should like to know exactly what the Minister has in mind when he talks about "defective conformation." Many hon. Members of this House have bred bulls, and we have looked all our lives for a bull that has not had too many defects. Under one Clause of this Bill the licence may be refused in respect of a bull with any defective conformation. Surely there is only one test, and that is the probable ability to get stock. Surely this Bill could have been tremendously simplified. There is one interesting Clause in the Bill dealing with bulls kept in zoological collections. I am not quite clear what is meant by that provision. Many of us have bred bulls which we thought were good zoological specimens, and we have sold bulls which certainly were zoological specimens, but I never thought that the zoological gardens were a possible outlet for my bulls. The Minister of Agriculture, I hope, will tell us what he has in mind in inserting this provision.

There is also a provision about experimental breeding. Surely all breeding is experimental; the whole thing is an experiment. If there ever was any truth in the expression, it is true that a bull takes a leap in the dark. Why drag in the provision about police inspection? We are to have a host of fresh officers appointed, and yet the policeman is to be allowed to go to a farm and is to have power to ask the farmer to produce his licence, and if the licence is not produced that is to be taken as evidence that there is no licence. Why not a provision, that the licence should be exhibited in the byre? It would give a certain amount of satisfaction to the cows to know that the bull was the accredited representative of the Minister.

Coming down to another practical point, the Bill is designed to license bulk of a certain age, and yet neither the amount that has to be paid for the licence nor the age at which the licence has to be got is specified. It seems to me that if the Minister had stopped his Bill after Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, and had started it again at Clause 10, he would have got the whole essence of it. Another Clause, the pet of Whitehall, provides that the Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything that is required under the Bill. The whole of the rest of the Bill is unnecessary if the right hon. Gentleman gets this provision. Against it I protest most strongly. The tendency nowadays is to have a provision of this sort in every Bill that is drafted in Whitehall, and that remark applies not only to the Department of Agriculture but to every department. Such a Clause is a direct attack on the liberty of the subject.

It is no use criticising a Measure unless one can suggest some form of alternative. I can suggest some ways in which the Minister can attain his object without quite so much frightfulness. We have breed societies all over the country. A previous speaker rather sneered at them, but he really was quite wrong. These breed societies have long lists of names of small tenant farmers who wish to become members, and the societies are becoming really representative of the best and most progressive thought in our agricultural communities. In many of the breed societies there is already a system for introducing new blood by foundation cows. The cows have to be inspected by some competent member of the society before they can be registered. Has the Minister thought whether some organisation of that sort could not be used? Has he made inquiry from the breed societies to find out whether or not they would be willing to co-operate with him and to develop some scheme of this sort? Then there are milk recording societies. It is true that the milk recorders are not experts, but they have a very fair knowledge of beasts, and, to start with, the Minister does not want to set too high a standard; he wants to get a general and steady improvement throughout the country. I am not sure whether the milk recorders could not be of real use to him. The Minister could use his livestock officers, about many of whom one cannot speak too highly, as referees. The Minister proposes to spend £40,000 under the Bill.

indicated dissent.

I believe it is the case that he is to take £15,000 from the taxpayers and £25,000 from the farmers. Therefore, he is going to spend £40,000 under this Bill. It may not seem much to one who has got into the habit of thinking in millions, but still it is a great deal of money and many of us have tried to set our faces against the spending of public money even in desirable ways such as this. I urge that before the time arrives for this Bill to be put into operation, the Minister should take whatever steps he can to consult with voluntary bodies and to try to get voluntary schemes, whether through milk societies or breeding societies or county agricultural committees, so as to stop the continually increasing invasion of "peaked hats" into our countryside.

This Bill affords an opportunity for humour of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) has taken full advantage and certain humour of a rather Rabelaisian character occurs to me in connection with it, but in a mixed assembly of this kind I do not propose to refer to that aspect of the question. I propose to make a more serious speech in accord with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. There is no doubt, as he said, that this Bill is long overdue, and I would like to refer to its main aspects from the standpoint of one who has made some study of cattle breeding both in this country and other parts of the Empire. I happen to own agricultural land both in this country and in one of the Dominions and I have seen the dire result of scrub bull matings in Africa and also the good results of pedigree bull matings in the same country. I have learned something of the pastoral conditions in Canada and both on the spot and also from official documents, I have seen something of the results of improved breeding of stock in India.

I should like to say, speaking with that cumulative knowledge and experience, that in my opinion the scrub bull is the greatest obstacle to the cattle industry in all its branches and in every part of the Empire. Leaving aside India where, as a result of religious outlook, special conditions prevail, I would go further and say that the cattle industry will flourish only in those countries where the legislature has the courage to ignore the voting strength of the selfish and ignorant minority among the farmers who are opposed to registration. Such opposition is small but widespread. Its logic is puerile and it is in disaccord with every principle of modern farming.

I am sorry that my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) is not here because the interests of the truth which I always try to utter in this House, would have compelled me to point out to him how entirely false was his argument on this point, from an economic point of view. This minority of selfishness and ignorance manages to influence, in a lesser or greater degree farmers' societies and unions in many countries, and the reason is obvious. I am not making any charge against the good faith of these societies or associations or unions and I do not refer to any particular one of them but it is obvious that they cannot afford to offend or lose the subscriptions of this minority and, therefore, they adopt a lukewarm attitude on this question of compulsory registration or even oppose it.

In that connection, I congratulate hon. Members who represent constituencies across the Border on the very proper and patriotic attitude which the Scottish National Farmers' Union has taken up and I wish the same attitude were taken up by the National Farmers' Union in this country. I do not wish to get into controversy with hon. Members who have opposed the Bill, but one hon. Member on this side of the House who suggested that it was only the breeding societies who were supporting the Bill was singularly wide of the point. I would like to quote to the House the very important and influential list of agricultural organisations which support this Bill. They include the Agricultural Council of England and Wales, the Royal Agri- cultural Society, the Highland and Agricultural Society, the Smithfield Club, the National Cattle Breeders Association, the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations, the Central Council of Milk Recording Societies, and the like.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), when I ventured to interrupt him on that point—and when he very courteously gave way—suggested that the Royal Agricultural Society is merely a breeders' society. That is a very strange observation to come from anyone who is as familiar with agricultural conditions as is my hon. Friend. The Royal Agricultural Society is much more than a breeders' society. It is one of the most valuable bodies, which has done more for agriculture, I think, than any similar body in any other country in the world has done. I have the greatest admiration for it. It is not in any sense a partisan body, and when it declares in favour of a principle of this kind, it does so purely on the ground that it is in the interests of the industry.

I do not want to go over ground already traversed with regard to the need for this Bill. It is a fact that, as the Minister said, the premium bull system which is in operation in some parts of the country has been productive of very considerable value within the narrow limits to which the scheme as it exists applies, but only 2 per cent. of the total number of bulls in the country are premium bulls. Of course, the percentage could not be very high, because the scheme is only put into operation for the purpose of cattle owned by smallholders and small farmers, but there is no doubt that of the remainder of the bulls used in this country a very large number are unsuitable for the purpose for which they are used.

In my opinion, there is a reasonable opportunity within the next few years for the beef cattle breeders and feeders to have a far better time than in the past, because, according to the best available scientific opinion, there is likely to be a certain world shortage of meat, which will cause a hardening of prices. If that is so, it is highly important that the beef cattle breeders and feeders of this country should be in a position to take advantage of the more prosperous times. I do not wish to speak as an expert on this question who can compare with some of the experts who sit in this House and have spoken from this side, but I doubt very much if it can be denied with truth that there has been some slight deterioration in the cattle in this country. I am afraid it is true. The pedigree cattle remain as good as ever—they are still the best in the world—and the dairy cattle in some districts have undoubtedly improved very much, but the small number of store cattle have not improved, and one reason is the existence of these scrub bulls.

What happens in connection with the scrub bulls, or in what respect is it that these inferior bulls do so much harm? I will tell the House. In many parts of England, especially in the south and west, where dairy farming is carried on on a large scale, it is the custom of farmers, while owning an excellent type of cow and heifer, not to care in the slightest degree what type of bulls they make use of. To them, the cheaper the bull the better, and it does not matter how bad or cheap he is. When taxed with the fact that they harm the industry they say, "It does not matter, because we sell all our calves for veal, and a bad bull gets the milk as much as a good bull." That would not matter so much if it were really the fact that these calves are all sold for veal. A proportion of them, the heavier calves, are put into milking herds, and there has been a distinct deterioration in certain parts of England. Therefore, I say that the evil of the scrub bull has been greatly increased by the extension of the dairying system.

There is not the slightest doubt that the value of this registration scheme in the Free State has been enormous, and when we are told by my noble Friend the Member for Aldershot and the hon. Member for Stone that the farmers of this country cannot afford this scheme, I would ask them to look at what has happened in Ireland. No one would suggest that in recent years the Irish farmers have been very prosperous. They have been hit very hard indeed, but they have been able to afford this scheme. In Ireland, as in this country, there was opposition to this scheme, but the Free State Ministers, with a courage which I commend, insisted upon the scheme being put into operation. The mere fact that it is in operation increases the danger to which we are subjected in this country from scrub bull, because it is a well-known fact-the Minister has supplied me with information on the subject—that bulls have been coming over in considerable numbers to this country, having been rejected by the Irish Government and brought over here, and used for stock-breeding purposes, or for stock. Much as I regret finding myself in disaccord with the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and the National Farmers' Union, I support this Bill, because I believe it to be in the interests of the country, though I hope, at the same time, the Minister will see his way to have regard to the suggestions made by many of my hon. Friends from a genuine desire to help the Bill, and that he will be able to put these Amendments in in Committee.

We have every reason to congratulate ourselves on the very favourable reception which has been accorded to this Bill. It is true, as the Noble Lord has just said, that certain points have been raised, but already my right hon. Friend has assured the House that opportunity will be given to discuss these in Committee. The purpose of the Bill is to promote the improvement of the quality of commercial cattle kept by farmers in this country. It is really a national interest, because about 50 per cent. of the prosperity of our agriculture depends upon the successful management of our cattle. This country has a very high reputation for its cattle and its cattle-breeding, and that reputation is wholly deserved. But although the best cattle produced in this country are probably the best cattle in the world, unfortunately a serious proportion of commercial cattle are of an inferior type, and we really desire to deal with that difficulty.

It was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) that as a result of schemes administered by the Department, improvement has been made in the quality of cattle in a number of districts. In many others, especially in those where the production of milk is the principle aim of the farmer, the breeding stock is often of an inferior quality. That is a very short-sighted policy and false economy. Other countries, as a result of legislation such as we are proposing, are able now to produce a high quality which competes with the best that we can produce, and every year the competition is becoming more serious. Consequently, it is not surprising that a number of the progressive farmers in England and Scotland are appealing for a Measure of this kind. In Scotland, all the agricultural associations and all the breeding societies welcome the Bill; in fact, they demand it. They are not afraid of any of its provisions, and they are quite prepared to face any small costs that may fall upon them. Scottish farmers will be glad indeed if the Bill is brought into force at a very early date. Whatever may be done by my right hon. Friend in order to meet the objections of sections of the English farming community, I shall try to get this Bill applied to Scotland at as early a date as I possibly can. One or two Scottish points have been raised, such as the preservation of the Shetland breed of cattle, and things of that kind. These are matters about which, I can assure hon. Members who put them, I am as keen as they are, but they are questions which can be dealt with in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

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