Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Monday, 13th July, 1931.

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Private Business

Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill [ Lords],

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 8th day of July, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill [ Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Salvation Army Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Dagenham Urban District Council Bill [ Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, &c). Bill [ Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers To Questions

Government Departments

India Office (Higher Clerical Officers)

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of higher clerical officers employed in his Department as at 1st April, 1931, and the number of higher clerical officers promoted to higher posts during the period 1st April, 1930 to 31st March, 1931?

The number of higher clerical officers employed in the India Office on the 1st April, 1931, was 23 substantive and one acting. There were no promotions to higher posts during the period 1st April, 1930, to 31st March, 1931.

Will the Secretary of State be good enough to look into the situation with a view of improving the proportion of these promotions?

Certainly, we are always anxious to make avenues for talent.

Post Office Workers (Retiring Age)

33.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the normal retiring age for all Post Office workers; and how many Post Office workers are at present employed in the Post Office who are over this age?

There is no fixed retiring age for Post Office servants; but retirement usually takes place between the ages of 60 and 62, according to circumstances. A return is now being obtained of established officers in the Post Office over the age of 60; and this information will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the question of the retiring age has always been a source of trouble?

Not without notice.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that a postman's is a healthy life, and that many postmen of 60 are in effect younger than men of 50 who have to work indoors?

India

Burma

asked the Secretary of State for India the present position in Burma; and if there is any improvement to report?

I am circulating a statement covering the events of last week which indicates some improvement in the general situation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the resentment caused by the issue of the recent White Paper in Burma?

No.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen "The Times" of this morning?

Has the Secretary of State's attention been called to the statement issued on behalf of the Burmese people pointing out the desperate economic plight which led to the rebellion, and is he prepared to take any action?

The Government of Burma is doing what it can to meet the economic difficulties, which were one of the causes of the rebellion.

May I ask whether consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Brown Committee of last year and whether any action will be taken?

If the hon. Member will give me notice of that question, I will go into the matter.

Following is the statement:

The situation continues to improve, particularly in Henzada and in Tharrawaddy. In Thayetmyo District dacoities are still very numerous, but another battalion is being sent there immediately and it is hoped that this will improve the situation. Pegu District gives cause for some anxiety, and the question of sending troops there also is receiving urgent attention. The only important event in Lower Burma was an attack by 30 rebels on a village east of Letpadan in the Tharrawaddy District which was repulsed by Karens from a neighbouring armed village. Twenty rebels were killed and two were captured. In Prome District surrenders now total 950 and in the Shan States the casualties inflicted on rebels in the engagement reported last week were 40 killed, and about the same number wounded. In a subsequent night attack made by the rebels on a small camp, the military police lost two men killed and two wounded, but eight rebel corpses were found outside the camp next morning. Since then, the rebels have made no attacks, and columns are combing out the affected villages, which are confined to a small area on the borders of the Hsipaw and Lawksawk States. The leader is believed to be a Burman Pongyi who has been assisted by a dismissed official of the Lawksawk State.

Only two attacks on Indians have been reported, both of which took place in Myaungmya District. Statistics of emigration from Burma have decreased considerably. The only Government casualties reported during the week are those from the Shan States mentioned above and four headmen who are reported to have been killed in Prome District. Over 1,600 prisoners have been released from custody and the number remaining is about 1,600. Further releases are in progress. The price of paddy remained steady during the week and cultivation is progressing in Lower Burma, where the monsoon is favourable. In most districts it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of land is likely to remain uncultivated. Crop prospects in the dry zone of Upper Burma are poor, and in several districts the early dry crops of sessamum, cotton and groundnuts are likely to be very poor owing to the failure of the early rains in June. Arrangements for the opening of relief works, where necessary, are being made.

British Goods (Boycott And Export)

asked the Secretary of State for India if any British cloth has actually been re-exported by the Foreign Piece Goods Export Company, Limited?

So far as I know, no British cloth has been re-exported by the company.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received a report from the Government of India regarding the action taken to prohibit the circulation by Congress agents of letters of covenant demanding that merchants shall cease to deal in foreign piece goods?

Yes, Sir; the issue of these letters was at once brought to the notice of Mr. Gandhi, with the result that they have been withdrawn.

Do I understand that Congress has been guilty of a breach of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement?

The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the letters have been withdrawn.

Is Mr. Gandhi now the Government of India?

Why is reference made to Mr. Gandhi instead of to the Government of India?

When the question was brought to my notice it was referred to the Government of India. They have taken such action as has resulted in the withdrawal of these letters.

10.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the report from the Government of India regarding the resolution recently passed by the working committee of Congress insisting upon complete prohibition both of the sale of existing stocks and of the importation of any further stocks of foreign cloth; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Yes, Sir. As a result of the investigation which I mentioned in replying to similar questions on 22nd June the Government of India have satisfied themselves that the intention of the working committee in adopting this resolution was, firstly, to stop the grant by subordinate Congress organisations of positive permission to deal in foreign cloth contrary to the declared Congress policy; and secondly, to take disciplinary action against the individual members of Congress or Congress organisations who offended against Congress policy in this connection. The Government of India are satisfied that it was not the intention to suggest that consumers and sellers generally were not free to exercise their option to deal or not to deal in foreign cloth.

Red Shirt Volunteers

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement as to the recent activities of the Red' Shirt Army in the North-West Province and the Punjab?

The persons known as Red Shirt volunteers were originally small groups of young men who undertook the duties of messengers, and so forth, for the various local committees of the Youth League in the North-West Frontier Province. Service in this association of volunteers, who adopted distinctively coloured clothing, proved very popular and the membership of it rapidly outnumbered that of the League to which it was intended to be subsidiary. The wearing of distinctive clothing became increasingly attractive and great numbers of persons, who were in no sense regular members of the volunteer association, took to wearing red shirts. The result is that the movement is now practically devoid of organisation, and there is a considerable amount of dissension among the various groups which have greater or less connection with the original Youth League. At the present time practically anybody who has any grievance against Government or anyone else dons a red shirt as the badge of discontent. Probably no more than one-third of the persons in the North-West Frontier Province now habitually wearing the Red Shirt uniform are members of the volunteer organisation associated with the Youth League of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. I do not deny the existence of dangerous possibilities in such a movement, but they are hardly those which might be inferred from the phrase "activities of the Red Shirt Army" used by the hon. Member.

Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the loyal population of these two provinces resenting the inactivity of the Government in this matter?

Representations, if there are any such, would be made to the local Governments.

Is it not the fact that the people of the North-West Provinces are among the most loyal people in the Empire?

They are some of the most excellent citizens.

Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State to protect these loyal citizens from the activities of this organisation?

Has any reprimand been given to the officers of the troops for their treatment of this organisation?

I am not aware of any.

Do the red shirts come from Lancashire?

Fiji (Indian Community)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have considered the request from the Fiji Indian community for the appointment of an agent to the Government of India in Fiji; and whether he will consider the desirability of bringing the question of such an appointment before the Government of India?

I am not aware that any recent request has been made to the Government of India by the Indian community in Fiji in regard to this matter. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, an officer possessing special Indian experience and language qualifications was appointed in 1926 as Secretary for Indian Affairs to advise the Governor on matters affecting British Indians in the colony. It has also been agreed that, subject to certain conditions, a representative of the Government of India may visit the colony from time to time to examine and report on specific questions of Indian interest.

If such a suggestion is made, will the right hon. Gentleman give it his consideration?

Yes.

Labour Conditions (Commission's Report)

asked the Secretary of State for India what action is proposed for the purpose of dealing with the labour conditions as disclosed in the recent report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India; and whether the conditions and recommendations, as disclosed in the Commission's report, will be matters for discussion at the forthcoming Round Table Conference?

asked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India proposes to take with a view to securing the application of the recommendations of the Whitley Commission on Labour?

Those portions of the report which deal with constitutional questions will no doubt be taken into consideration at the resumed Round Table Conference. For the rest, the Government of India will no doubt take into early consideration the numerous recommendations of the Commission and inform me in due course of the action which they propose to take.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the revelations in this report call for immediate remedial action?

Yes, I am in hopes that we shall soon get to work to implement some of the resolutions, but it is a matter primarily for the Government of India.

Have the Government of India taken any action up to the present?

There has hardly been time to consider fully the report. It has only been published about a fortnight.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Government of India, is it not a fact that a great many of these matters fall within the purview of the provincial governments as they are transferred subjects?

The Noble Lord is quite right, but I should expect to get the recommendations, after consultation, through the Government of India.

Is it not the case that, although they are transferred subjects, Indian Ministers cannot implement the recommendations without finance, which is not a transferred subject?

Has the right hon. Gentleman sent a report to the Bombay millowners and others who are particularly concerned?

Underground Employment (Women)

asked the Secretary of State for India the latest figures showing the total number of women employed underground in coal, salt, and other mines in India; and what steps are being taken with a view to the elimination of female employment underground?

The daily average number of women employed underground in 1929 was 24,089. In 1929 women were totally excluded from underground workings except in coal mines in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the Central Provinces and salt mines in the Punjab. The employment of women underground in these exempted mines was reduced forthwith to 29 per cent. of the total underground labour force in coal mines and 40 per cent. in salt mines, and is being further reduced by 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively each year so that after 1st July, 1939, women will be entirely excluded from underground workings.

Is it not a fact that failure to exclude women up to date has not been caused by any desire to work women in the mines in Bengal, but by the difficulty of getting men to go underground unless women go as well?

I have no knowledge; doubtless the hon. Member is right.

Police Pay

11.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether in connection with the proposed cuts in the salaries of all officials in India, special consideration will be given to the rank and file of the Indian police, in view of their present low scale of pay?

The pay of the rank and file of the Indian police is a matter for the local Governments in India and is subject to the vote of the Provincial legislatures, but I have no doubt that local Governments, if they should decide to formulate schemes for reductions of pay, will not fail to give careful consideration to the position of the police.

Will the Secretary of State use his great influence with the local legislatures in order that the pay of the police may be protected?

The Governments of the Provinces are as conscious as the hon. Member of the need for fairness in this matter, and I shall await their views before making any decision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into favourable consideration the low rate of wages of the other 350,000,000 people in India?

Juvenile Employment

12.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will recommend to the Government of India that steps should now be taken to prohibit the employment of children under 14 in all Indian factories?

I propose to await an expression of the views of the Government of India on the relevant paragraphs of the report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India.

Forced Labour, Balasinor

13.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the form of forced labour covered by the Slavery Convention of 1926 is restricted to forced labour for private profit, he will say for what purpose forced labour is being exacted from the peasants in the Balasinor State, Rajputana?

My attention has now been drawn to a statement in the Press that the Nawab of Balasinor, a State in the Bombay Presidency, proposes shortly to abolish all forced labour in his State following representations from some of his subjects. The forced labour was, I gather, exacted by the State authorities, but I do not know for what purpose.

Is it not a fact that the constitutional position of His Majesty's Government in regard to these matters is at least very doubtful, and that it would be very difficult to enforce the abolition of forced labour?

There is no question of enforcement. We can offer friendly advice, and it is often effective.

Round Table Conference

14.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the status and treatment of Indians in other parts of the Empire will come within the scope of the discussion at the resumed Round Table Conference?

The scope of the Conference does not require a specific examination of this subject.

Is it not a fact that Indians throughout the Empire are treated with the greatest consideration everywhere?

That is a very controversial subject. I have my own views about the status of Indians in East Africa.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of calling the attention of the Foreign Secretary to this matter, and asking him if he will raise the matter with the League of Nations?

48.

asked the Prime Minister whether any conclusions have been reached from his correspondence and conversations with leaders of other parties as to the personnel of the British delegation to future meetings of the Round Table Conference?

This matter is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement beyond that made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on the 9th instant.

Will the Chairman of the Statutory Commission be included in the British delegation?

Meerut Prisoners (Defence Fund)

15.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any of the accused in the Meerut conspiracy case have taken advantage of the offer made by the Government of India to provide funds to assist the defence and, if so, how many; whether he will state the amount of the fund provided for this purpose; and whether the accused are free to select their own counsel, or in what way the selection of counsel for the defence is made?

Some of the accused have accepted the offer of Government to contribute towards the fees of the Defence Counsel, who is accordingly now being partly paid by Government. I have no information as to the amount of Government's contribution or the number of the accused who have accepted the offer. The Counsel in question has been conducting the case on behalf of the accused from its inception.

Age Of Consent (Joshi Report)

16.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the report of the Age of Consent Committee (Joshi Report) has been translated into any, and if so, what, of the languages of India; and, if not, whether he will cause it to be so translated and widely circulated?

I have not this information but will inquire.

17.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will cause the report of the Age of Consent Committee and the nine volumes of evidence on which it is based to be placed in the House of Commons Library?

I am taking steps to comply with the hon. Lady's suggestion.

Births And Marriages (Notification)

18.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state which provinces of India have made compulsory the notification of births, including the sex and name of the child; which provinces have made compulsory the notification of marriages, including the names and ages of the parties; and which provinces issue birth and marriage certificates free of charge?

I have no detailed information regarding local rules on the subject. But there is no general compulsory notification of births or marriages in any province.

China

19.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the military position in Northern China; and whether, up to now, there has been any effective disbandment in the various military forces?

Since the civil war ended nine months ago, the general military situation in North China has been quiet. It does not appear that disbandment has yet made much progress.

Has my right hon. Friend received reports of any other hostilities going on in North China?

No, I have not.

Iraq

Minorities

20.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what communications have passed between the Government and the League of Nations Union with respect to the memorandum of the latter addressed to the Mandates Commission on behalf of the Iraq minorities; and whether the Government now propose to make representations on their own account to the Mandates Commission on behalf of these minorities?

The hon. and gallant Member no doubt refers to a letter, which I recently addressed to the chairman of the League of Nations Union, deprecating the action of the union in sending to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations a memorandum which had been prepared without any prior consultation with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. This memorandum was only communicated to the Foreign Office after its despatch to Geneva, and, in the considered opinion of His Majesty's Government, it could only seriously injure the cause it was intended to serve. I felt sure it had been sent without a full realisation of the facts of the situation, or of its probable effects. As regards the second part of the question, the Permanent Mandates Commission are fully alive to the importance of the question of the minorities in Iraq, and have recently given it careful consideration. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it would be both unnecessary and improper for them to address any representations to the commission on the subject.

Who will be directly responsible for protecting the rights of these minorities, seeing that we shall be the only people with the available force to right their wrongs?

That is when the mandate has terminated?

Yes.

They will be in the same position as in any other country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the League of Nations Union that communications of this kind should not again take place without consultation with the Foreign Office?

I think that the action I have taken is very appropriate.

British Forces

41.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since under the terms of the new treaty concluded with Iraq that country retains the right to use British forces for the maintenance of internal order, what steps the Government intend to take to discharge their obligations in respect of minorities in Iraq undertaken as a consequence of the acceptance of the mandate of the League of Nations?

If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to Article 5 of the treaty he will find that the assumption that Iraq will have the right to call upon British forces to maintain internal order is without foundation. The second part of the question therefore does not arise. It is not contemplated that the British forces retained in Iraq shall be at the disposal of any but British authority who will be fully able to judge whether their use is justified in any particular emergency.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where in the treaty there is any provision safeguarding the use of British troops?

I have referred the hon. and gallant Member to Article 5, and I have pointed out that the suggestion in his question, that the Iraq Government have the right to call upon British troops, is not accurate. I think he will find, if he looks at Article 5, that it confirms my reply.

Afghanistan (Imported Munitions)

21.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the country from whence the arms recently imported through India to Afghanistan came; and of what do these imported munitions of war consist?

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are not concerned with purchases which the Afghan Government may make in foreign countries, except as regards transit through India, which is covered by the terms of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Article 6 and the Appendix of that Treaty which has been presented to Parliament.

Russia (Coal)

22.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make available to Members of the House a copy of the recent order of the Soviet Union, signed by the president of the council of commissars and the president of the supreme industrial council, in relation to coal production and the fixing of rates of payment of wages and salaries?

The text of the order to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has not yet reached me. As soon as I have had an opportunity of examining it, I will consider having a translation placed in the Library of the House.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Medical And Surgical Records

23.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will produce and issue for general information a comprehensive and scientific record of the experiences and achievements of the Ministry in medical and surgical spheres, including treatment of wounds, disorders of the nervous systems, and other diseases?

A review of the Ministry's experience in the handling of the principal war disabilities has been prepared by the Ministry for inclusion in the forthcoming "Official Medical History of the War," which I understand will be issued at a very early date. I may add that I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, and have already under consideration what further steps, if any, can usefully be taken in this direction.

Final Awards (Recurrent Disability)

24.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the hardship caused by the granting of final awards in cases of recurrent disability, such as neurasthenia, gas-poisoning, malaria, and others; and if he is prepared to grant further consideration to ex-service men whose disability may recur at any time after their final award is finished, with a view to awarding them either treatment with full allowances over a certain period or a further award of pension, conditional on the duration of a man's illness which is directly due to one of the recurrent disabilities mentioned?

A final award is not, under the statutory regulations, made until the man's condition is reasonably stable, each case being considered on its merits and in the light of expert opinion as to the particular ailment or disease. In any event the man has a right of appeal for a year to an independent Appeal Tribunal. If a condition due to war service subsequently calls for treatment, it can be provided and allowances can also be paid where they are justified notwithstanding that a final award may have been made. If, as a result of such treatment, a final award should be found to have been seriously erroneous as an assessment for permanent purposes, a further grant of pension can be made under special sanction.

Trade And Commerce

Export Credits (Russia)

26.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can make any statement to the House regarding the extension of the export credits scheme to include guarantees by His Majesty's Government in connection with engineering products and against non-payment of debt by the Russian Soviet republic?

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 9th July.

Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that every single application that comes forward will have to be dealt with by the advisory committee in the same way as at present?

It is not proposed to make any change whatever in the working of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that all applications have to go before the advisory committee by Act of Parliament.

There is nothing new at all about this question of giving credits to engineering products?

Nothing new beyond what is stated by my right hon. Friend in regard to the length of credit.

Brazil

27.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any recent report from His Majesty's Commercial Secretary at Rio de Janeiro on the operations of the Central Buying Commission established by the Brazilian Government under decree of 14th January last; if he has made any special arrangements to keep British manufacturers in touch with the requirements of the public services of Brazil; and if, up to the latest convenient date, any tenders on a gold basis have been accepted by the commission from this country?

The Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Embassy at; Rio de Janeiro has kept the Department of Overseas Trade fully informed regarding the establishment by the Brazilian Government of a Central Purchasing Commission, and its requirements. The information has been communicated to British manufacturers and given wide publicity. From a report received from the Commercial Secretary on the 9th July, it appears that the commission has not yet made any purchases abroad. The Commercial Secretary and consular officers are under standing instructions to report public calls for tender in Brazil which offer any opportunity for British manufacturers, and, generally, to keep the Department well informed as to the requirements of the public services. The operations of the commission relate only to the requirements of the public services of the Federal Government.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, I would ask, has the Commercial Secretary given any indication of possible forthcoming orders so that British manufacturers might be prepared to tender?

I will have that matter inquired into.

Buenos Ayres Central Railway (Order)

28.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that British firms recently tendered for 20 steel coaches for the Buenos Ayres Terminal Central Railway Company similar to those supplied last year by a Birmingham firm, and lost the order to an American firm; will he ascertain and state whether the order was lost owing to price; and, if so, will he obtain the observations of the British tenderers as to the cause of the difference in price?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I will have inquiries made on the points raised by the hon. Member.

Will the hon. Gentleman inquire of our commercial representative in Buenos Ayres as to the reason for this loss of an order, and will he communicate what he learns to the various sections of the trade so that they may know where the difficulties arise?

I will consider that point when the information has been obtained.

Czechoslovakia And Yugoslavia (Tariff Agreement)

37.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received any information in relation to the tariff agreement between the Czechslovak and the Yugoslav Governments; and if he can state its general effect?

The agreement reduced the import duties levied on certain goods in each country. Particulars of the reductions of duty were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 2nd and 9th July.

Domestic Exports

38.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufactures between this country and foreign countries in 1929 and 1930, respectively, excluding re-exports?

In respect of articles classified as wholly or mainly manufactured, the value of the domestic exports from the United Kingdom consigned to foreign countries in 1929 exceeded the total imports consigned from such countries by £4,636,000. The corresponding (provisional) figure for 1930 was an excess of total imports over domestic exports amounting to £39,505,000.

Agriculture

Paper Sacks

30.

asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he has yet taken the necessary steps to bring to the notice of agriculturists and others the advisability of using the Australian model paper sacks for feeding stuffs, fertilisers, and other similar materials, so that unnecessary expense arising from the use of returnable bags and sacks may be eliminated and the spread of infective disease prevented?

The possibilities attaching to the use of paper sacks for the packing of agricultural produce in suitable instances have already been brought to the notice of agriculturists in the course of marketing demonstrations arranged by the Ministry at agricultural shows.

Criminal Law

36.

asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to prevent a criminal charge, which has already been dismissed by a magistrate, being brought before a court of assize or other High Court, in order that it may no longer be possible for a man to be tried twice for the same offence?

I have no power to prevent the presentation of an original bill of indictment except where my consent is sought in respect of those offences which are subject to the provisions of the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859. In all other indictable offences it is open to any person to prefer an indictment without a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, or in a case where, after such a hearing, the magistrate has decided not to commit the accused for trial. The hon. Member is in error in regarding the proceedings before a magistrate as a trial. They are in the nature of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial. I should add that the Attorney-General has the power to enter a nolle prosequi to any indictment, but this merely puts an end to the particular proceeding and is not the equivalent to an acquittal.

Palestine (Petroleum)

39.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the discovery of petroleum in payable quantities in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea in Palestine, any applications have been made to the Government for permission to exploit these areas; if so, whether by British or foreign concerns; and what has been the result of such application?

I am not aware that petroleum has been discovered in payable quantities in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. I understand that in 1927 the Standard Oil Company, on behalf of whom investigations had been conducted, were granted permission to re-transfer to the original holders certain "permis de recherche" granted by the Turkish Government before the War. I also understand that some investigations were made by the Anglo-Persian and associated companies, who did not consider the prospects sufficiently good to warrant expenditure on further exploration. As stated in the annual reports for the years in question, in 1928 two exploration permits were issued in respect of petroleum for areas round the south end of the Bead Sea; and in 1930 four exploration permits, in lieu of seven Ottoman "permis de recherche" were issued to the holders of Ottoman Concessions for petroleum and other minerals.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in this case again, the concession will be reserved for the Zionists alone, and that no one else need apply?

Fiji (Sedition Ordinance)

40.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the change contemplated by the Government of Fiji in issuing a new sedition ordinance; and how sedition will be defined in the proposed ordinance?

A Bill was introduced into the Fiji Legislative Council in February last, but my Noble Friend is not aware whether it has yet been passed. He is communicating with the Governor on the matter.

Housing (Foreign Materials)

42.

asked the Minister of Health if he has any information as to the extent foreign timber, foreign-made doors and window frames, were employed in the housing schemes of local authorities in 1930 in the whole or any section of England and Wales?

No, Sir.

Have we no information at all then upon this point; and is the hon. Lady aware that both the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health have issued "Buy British goods" circulars, and, in the absence of the information, how can they say that that request is being carried out?

I cannot add to the very simple answer which I have given to a very simple question.

Is it a fact that the Ministry of Health, knowing the importance of this question to British manufacturers, have no information as to the extent to which foreign materials are being used?

Does the Department attempt to get such information; and, if not, is their order in this matter not made entirely nugatory?

Would it be possible to find out the extra cost per house involved?

Order!

Officers Training Corps (Flights)

43.

asked the Secretary of State for War if any alterations have been made for this year in respect of the regulations in force during the past few years allowing public school cadets taking part in the Officers Training Corps summer training camps to fly in aircraft of the Royal Air Force; and, if so, for what reasons?

Yes, Sir. Flying has no relation to, nor part in, the training of the Officers Training Corps, and experience has shown that the practice in the past, of granting special facilities for casual flights on the part of cadets, during their summer camps, is deprecated by many of the parents. The majority of parents undoubtedly prefer that these flights should not be associated with training in the Junior Officers Training Corps, and, after full consideration, it has been decided that this practice shall be discontinued.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that training in aviation constitutes a part of the training of a cadet in the Officers Training Corps; and is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this is probably the greatest attraction of these camps?

I am not aware of that and have stated quite precisely and clearly in the answer that the contrary is the case.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any opinions from the headmasters of the schools concerned on the subject; and is he aware that no boy was allowed to fly without the explicit permission of parents; and does he not see that that disposes entirely of the answer which he has given to my hon. and gallant Friend?

If I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it would dispose of my answer, but I am not aware of the facts being as he has stated. The action taken has been taken on the expert advice of men who know the subject infinitely better than I do, but I am willing to inquire into any point raised, if it is possible that a mistake has been made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman particularly make inquiries from headmasters?

Ordnance Maps And Admiralty Charts

44 and 49.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the number and value, respectively, of Ordnance survey maps and Admiralty charts sold to the public for the year 1913–14, as well as for each year since 11th November, 1918, to 31st March, 1931;

(2) what was the total number of Government employés engaged, respectively, in producing and selling maps for Government Departments, and in producing Admiralty charts in 1913–14, and on 31st March, 1931?

I am having inquiry made of the Departments concerned, and will in due course let the right hon. Gentleman know the result.

Reparations And Inter-Governmental Debts

45.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a further statement as to the present position of the offer made by the United States; and whether final arrangements have been made for the respective meetings in London of experts and Ministers of the various countries concerned?

As hon. Members will be aware, invitations were issued by His Majesty's Government on 10th July to the Belgian, French, German, Italian, Japanese and United States Governments to send representatives to a meeting of financial experts to be held at the Treasury in London on 17th July to consider and recommend the measures necessary to give effect to President Hoover's proposal. No final decision has yet been taken in regard to a meeting of Ministers.

Has acceptance been signified by all the countries enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman in that invitation?

I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given me notice of that question. I am not very sure, but I think so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any later news as to what has happened during the week-end about the settlement of debts and granting credits in Germany?

I am afraid that it is impossible to do so without notice.

Is it true that the Government are trying to persuade Germany to abandon the proposed Customs union with Austria?

Fishing Industry (Report)

47.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any report to lay before the House of the proceedings of the Fisheries Committee?

This inquiry is being conducted by the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, and it will be for the latter body, when they receive the committee's report, to consider whether they should recommend that it should be published by His Majesty's Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said in this House so long ago as the 2nd February that the Government were considering the draft report?

No. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend did not say that the Government were considering the draft report. He did say that the committee was considering the draft report.

I think he said, "We are considering it."

That might be so. As a matter of fact, the committee has been considering its draft report, but the Government have had no report to consider, draft or otherwise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the report may be expected?

I am afraid that that question has been put so often that I have nothing to add.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given us no indication when the report may be expected, and that the fishermen of Scotland are anxiously awaiting it?

In that respect the Government are in exactly the same position as the fishermen of Scotland.

Land Value Tax

50.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of the staff at the beginning of this month dealing wholly or mainly with the land taxes imposed in the present Finance Bill?

Four.

51.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon it is proposed to issue to owners of land forms or other information showing the land units of which they are the owners in respect of which valuations will, or may, be made?

I assume that what the right hon. Member has in mind is an issue of forms for the purpose of obtaining information under Clause 27 of the Finance Bill. As he will recall, the date as at which the valuation under Part III of the Finance Bill is to be made is the 1st January, 1932, and it is not contemplated that any issue of forms, in those cases where it may be found necessary to take this step, will be made before that date.

Electricity Supply, North Riding

52.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the cost of the electricity pylons between Malton and Whitby under the schemes submitted for his consent by the Electricity Commissioners?

This question ought not to be on the Order Paper before Question No. 53.

I understand from the Central Electricity Board that the estimated cost of the pylons and foundations for the line between Malton and Whitby is £22,800.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the load to be carried on those lines at that cost?

I am afraid I could not say that.

53.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received an application from the Electricity Commissioners for his consent to schemes embodying a proposal to set up electricity pylons in the Yorkshire moors between Pickering and Whitby; and whether he will withhold his consent from any scheme that would disfigure the beauty of the moorland scenery?

I have received an application from the Central Electricity Board for consent to the erection of a portion of the overhead line which will ultimately connect Pickering with Whitby. None of the various local authorities through whose area the line will pass has expressed a desire to be heard against the application. In connection with the same overhead line, I have received an application for certain compulsory wayleaves which will receive consideration in accordance with the powers conferred on me by the Electricity (Supply) Acts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has not received a resolution from the North Riding County Council opposing that scheme so long back as two months ago?

The North Riding County Council have communicated, but they did not take the particular action which they ought to have taken under the Electricity Supply Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the countryside should be desolated in this fashion without consultation with his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works?

There is ample opportunity provided for consultation. Certainly that is an important aspect, but on the other hand people have got to live.

Will my right hon. Friend see that these pylons are at least equal in beauty to the pithead machinery around Yorkshire?

Will the right hon. Gentleman hold a local inquiry now in view of the grave dissatisfaction with the proposal in the district?

The procedure is laid down in the Act, and the local authorities have not taken advantage of that procedure. I have not yet come to a decision, and I shall consider the communications which have been forwarded to me, but people cannot have inquiries

Division No. 386.]	AYES.	[3.26 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Burgess, F. G.	Freeman, Peter
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Alpass, J. H.	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Ammon, Charles George	Cameron, A. G.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Arnott, John	Cape, Thomas	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Gibbins, Joseph
Ayles, Walter	Chater, Daniel	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Cluse, W. S.	Gill, T. H.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Gillett, George M.
Barr, James	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Glassey, A. E.
Batey, Joseph	Compton, Joseph	Gossling, A. G.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Cove, William G.	Gould, F.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Cowan, D. M.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Gray, Milner
Benson, G.	Daggar, George	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Blindell, James	Dallas, George	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Dalton, Hugh	Grundy, Thomas W.
Bowen, J. W.	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Day, Harry	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Brooke, W.	Ede, James Chuter	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Edmunds, J. E.	Harbord, A.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Egan, W. H.	Hayday, Arthur
Buchanan, G.	Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)	Hayes, John Henry

if they do not ask for them in the proper way.

But if the local authorities do object, will the right hon. Gentleman—

Order‡

Business Of The House

May I ask the Prime Minister what business he desires to take to-night?

It is proposed to take to-night the further stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill, the Second Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and of the Public Works Loans Bill, and the Committee stage of the Public Works Loans (Remission of Debt) Money Resolution.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Vote in Supply will be taken on Thursday next?

I am informed that the Vote will be the Board of Education and the Public Education (Scotland) Vote.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 106.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Marcus, M.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Markham, S. F.	Shield, George William
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Marley, J.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Marshall, Fred	Shillaker, J. F.
Herriotts, J.	Mathers, George	Shinwell, E.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Matters, L. W.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Messer, Fred	Simmons, C. J.
Hoffman, P. C.	Mills, J. E.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Horrabin, J. F.	Milner, Major J.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Montague, Frederick	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Morley, Ralph	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Mort, D. L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Sorensen, R.
Kelly, W. T.	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Stamford, Thomas W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Strauss, G. R.
Kinley, J.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Kirkwood, D.	Palin, John Henry	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Knight, Holford	Paling, Wilfrid	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)	Palmer, E. T.	Tillett, Ben
Lang, Gordon	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Tinker, John Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Perry, S. F.	Toole, Joseph
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Tout, W. J.
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Viant, S. P.
Lawrence, Susan	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Walker, J.
Lawson, John James	Pole, Major D. G.	Wallace, H. W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Potts, John S.	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Leach, W.	Pybus, Percy John	Watkins, F. C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Weliock, Wilfred
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Rathbone, Eleanor	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lees, J.	Raynes, W. R.	West, F. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Westwood, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Whitelay, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Longbottom, A. W.	Ritson, J.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Longden, F.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Lunn, William	Romeril, H. G.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Rowson, Guy	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
McElwee, A.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
McEntee, V. L.	Sanders, W. S.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Sawyer, G. F.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Scott, James	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
McShane, John James	Scurr, John
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
March, S.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Eden, Captain Anthony	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Muirhead, A. J.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Ferguson, Sir John	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Fielden, E. B.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Ford, Sir P. J.	Remer, John R.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Frece, Sir Walter de	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Ganzoni, Sir John	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Boyce, Leslie	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Salmon, Major I.
Bracken, B.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brass, Captain Sir William	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Savery, S. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Campbell, E. T.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prismth, S.)	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hurd, Percy A.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Iveagh, Countess of	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Chapman, Sir S.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Thompson, Luke
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Macquisten, F. A.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Marjoribanks, Edward	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Warrender, Sir Victor	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wayland, Sir William A.	Womereley, W. J.	Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley	Sir George Bowyer.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

Ministry Of Health Provisional Orders (Great Marlow Water And Yeadon Water) Bill

Report from the Committee; That they had, pursuant to Standing Order No. 225, divided the Bill into two Bills, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Great Marlow Water) Bill and Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Yeadon Water) Bill brought up, and read.

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (Yeadon Water) Bill

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

Orders Of The Day

Agricultural Marketing Bill

As amended ( in the Standing Committee) further considered.

Clause 3—(Poll On Question Whether Scheme To Remain In Force)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after the word "scheme," to insert the words, "except a substitutional scheme."

As I explained in moving the first of this series of Amendments when the Bill was before the House on the last occasion, the creation of a substitutional scheme is to be treated on the same lines as the making of an amendment to an existing scheme. The question of a poll as to whether the scheme should remain in force, therefore, does not arise.

This is consequential on an Amendment accepted before, and it will, be accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "voting on the poll."

Sub-section (2, a) provides for not less than two-thirds of the total registered producers voting on the poll. My suggestion is that the words "voting on the poll" should be taken out, so that all the registered producers will be taken into account and not only those voting on the poll, on the question whether a scheme shall remain in force. Some of us on these benches feel that the amount of compulsion to be applied in this Bill is very excessive. There is a previous Amendment on the Order Paper, which I presume is not to be called, which would have had the effect of increasing the percentage of the majority required for getting a scheme in force from two-thirds to three-quarters. That Amendment not having been called, some hon. Members on these benches feel that it is tremendously important to leave out these words, because the Clause, as it stands, provides that after a scheme has been put into force there shall be a poll, and that not less than two-thirds of the registered producers going to the poll shall give their assent to the scheme remain- ing in force. For two-thirds of the registered producers to be able to give assent to a scheme with such a tremendous element of compulsion in it is a small enough percentage, but the Clause says that the assent shall be that of two-thirds of those actually going to the poll.

All producers will have to be registered, or else they will be put out of business. Having registered, it may happen that some of them cannot get to the poll, or for various reasons are not sufficiently interested in the scheme to record a vote, and I submit that this being a new departure in the marketing of agricultural produce, the Minister ought to be assured that certainly two-third's of the total number of producers really desire a scheme before that scheme is forced on them. If these words were struck out, a scheme would not be prejudiced, but the Minister would have the assurance that at least two-thirds of the whole of the registered producers did really desire it. I am certain that the Minister does not desire to put a scheme into operation unless it has a great volume of approval behind it. That volume of approval will be obtained by way of this poll, and, as one-third of the producers in any case will be forced into the scheme, I suggest that the Minister might give way with regard to these words and insist that two-thirds of the total of registered producers shall be in favour of a scheme before it is allowed to remain in force.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, for it would mean the absolute destruction of the scheme, though I am sure that that is not what is intended by the hon. Member. Take his own statement. He said that a producer may not be sufficiently interested to vote. Under his Amendment that inert person would be counted against the scheme. All who fail to vote would be preventing others who wish to get a scheme into operation from being able to do so. If these words were struck out of the Bill every lazy person, every person who is not interested, would automatically count against anything being done. We must have regard to the wishes of those who take the trouble to vote, and not of those who do not. In a majority of cases it will, I have no doubt, be a postcard vote, or something of that kind, and if a man is too lazy or not sufficiently interested to fill up a postcard, then I do not think he is entitled to have his views counted against those who wish to get on with a scheme. I notice that a similar Amendment to this has been put down by the hon. Member on the next paragraph. If that were adopted it would be a physical impossibility to have a successful poll, because the next paragraph requires a two-thirds majority not only of the number of producers but of the acreage, and if a number of persons do not bother to vote at all we should not know what acreage they represent. I am sure the implications of his proposal were not fully realised by the hon. Member. It would defeat the purposes of the Bill, and I must ask the House to support me in resisting the Amendment.

Speaking only for myself, as this is a non-party Bill I must say that I agree with the Minister. It seems too fantastic to say that those who do not take the trouble to vote should be taken into account. In our Parliamentary and municipal elections we count only those who take the trouble to go to the poll, and, therefore, apart from whether this proposal would help this particular scheme or not, it would run counter to the principle on which we have always acted in our public life.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "the poll aforesaid is to be taken," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"polls are to be taken for the purposes of this Act."

Sub-section (3) says that every scheme shall provide for the manner in which the poll as to whether a scheme is to remain in force is taken. In Part II of the First Schedule it becomes necessary to adopt that procedure to polls on the question of Amendment. The effect of this Amendment will be to say straight away that every scheme has to lay down how all polls are to be taken, so that there shall be no need to adopt the procedure of one part of the Bill to another part of the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Government agree to accept this Amendment. It is made necessary partly by the adoption of the substitutional scheme amendment, and it also applies the principle of the poll to initial polls, polls on Amendments and the rest.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, at the end, to insert the words:

"(d) shall prescribe the manner in which the result of the poll is to be declared and published."

I think it is advisable that the Minister should have a say in how the result of the poll shall be made known. The result might be published in only one paper, perhaps, and people might not know that the scheme was actually in force, and render themselves liable to penalties through their ignorance of that fact.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Government agree to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:

"The question whether any product is to be treated as a separate product for the purpose of this Sub-section shall be determined by the provisions of the scheme."

This Amendment is necessary because we are accepting an Amendment to leave out the Fourth Schedule and that will involve a number of definitions. This Amendment is one of a number which have already been accepted.

I understand this Amendment is merely a consequential Amendment to the decision to leave out the Fourth Schedule, and I have no objection to offer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4—(Regulation Of Marketing And Encouragement Of Co-Operation, Education And Research)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 41, after the word "sell," to insert the words "or let for hire."

Briefly put the object of this Amendment is to enable the Board to let for hire anything required by producers in the production of a regulated product.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I remember that in Committee the hon. Member pointed out that the powers in the Bill might not enable a board to let empties to their members, and that in some cases it might be desirable that members should be able to hire them rather than have to purchase them. I promised the hon. Member that if he would put down an Amendment I would accept it, and I am glad to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:

"(d) for empowering the board to cooperate with any other person in doing anything which the board are or might be empowered to do by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this section."

This Amendment deals with the question as to what the Board may do in the matter of processing. Under the Bill as it stands, if the board wants to take in hand any processing in any of these operations, it has no alternative but to set up new machinery. It would be very undesirable for the board to do that, because there would be a tendency for the machinery to overlap with existing machinery. For these reasons, I think it is very desirable that some power should be given to the board to enable them to co-operate with existing interests. The Minister was kind enough to meet my Amendments in substance dealing with the financial part of the Clause, and I hope that he will accept this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Government accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:

"( ) for empowering any person authorised in writing by the board for the purpose of securing compliance with the scheme, to enter and inspect, at any reasonable time and on production of his authority, any part of the land or premises occupied by any registered producer which the person so authorised has reason to believe is used for producing the regulated product or for doing any of the following things which is regulated by the scheme, that is to say, grading, marking, packing, or storing the regulated product or adapting it for sale."

This Amendment has been put down as a result of a very long discussion in which it was pointed out that the powers sought to be conferred on the board, and as provided in the Bill, might go too far. As a result of prolonged discussion, I agreed to try on the Report stage to find words which would meet the objections then raised. It will be seen by the Amendment that the person so authorised would be:

"authorised in writing by the board for the purpose of securing compliance with the scheme."

Under the original words, the area of inspection for this purpose was thought to be too wide, and it was argued that a man would be entitled to go into another man's premises and turn over the books and inspect his accounts. I agree that that power was too wide, and it has been excluded from this Amendment. The authorised person will be able to inspect in regard to any of the following things which are regulated by the scheme, that is to say:

"grading, marking, packing, or storing the regulated product or adapting it for sale."

The person so authorised will be entitled to see that the producer is carrying out the requirements of the law in those respects and investigate questions which have arisen with respect to those matters. By this Amendment, I have tried to meet the main points of criticism raised in Committee, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed.

I do not view this Amendment with the same amount of satisfaction as the Minister. Although the Labour Government have been in office for two years, England is still supposed to be a free country. How long it will remain so I do not know, and I am afraid it will not be for very long if the Minister of Agriculture and his friends have their way. I dissent from the idea that it is proper for the board to send one of its officials even at a reasonable time and with a mandamus from the board to pry all over any farm or process in order to see that the farmer is conforming with the orders of the board. I am not opposed to marketing reform, but there must be some limit to the interference to which individual farmers may be subjected. I believe that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. If a farmer does not observe the regulations of the board in regard to price, grading, marking, packing or storing, all those things can be ascertained at the market, where there are easy methods of catching the man who is not playing the game without invading the privacy of his farm and treating him like a kulak under the Soviet regime. We do not want to import that spirit into our agriculture or into the working of organised markets.

For these reasons, I appeal to the Minister not to press this Amendment, but to see whether the Clause cannot be left without all these inquisitorial powers. After all, the board can never succeed unless they have the good will of the farmers behind them, and this Amendment is not the way to promote good will. I admit that this proposal is an improvement on the original Clause, which enabled the farmers' books to be inspected and examined by the inspectors, and I am glad that that part has been dropped. I hope the Minister will agree to drop the remaining part of his Amendment. I am sure we shall never get the co-operation of the agricultural community by imposing upon them methods of this sort.

4.0 p.m.

I want to support very strongly what has fallen from my right hon. Friend. It is true that the Amendment of the Minister is an improvement on the original Bill, but the original Bill was quite unthinkable. An inspector of the board was to be enabled to visit any part of a farmer's premises and inspect any books and documents. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has now brought it within reasonable limits. But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, and it is true, the way to deal with such offences as are outlined in the Amendment regarding

"grading, marking, packing or storing the regulated product or adapting it for sale"

is to find out the delinquent when the article is finished, or when it is offered for sale. It is, to me, unthinkable that at all times in the process of manufacture an inspector should be able to poke his nose into everything going on in a farm. I do not like it, and I cannot see one of these inspectors coming round my farm. The right hon. Gentleman is generally expansive in his explanations of Amendments, but he did not enter into details on this occasion. What is to be the process under the Clause suppose an inspector finds something going on which he does not like? Is he simply to warn the producer that he had better mend his ways and make his butter in another way? Is he to be allowed to do that without any reference to any other authority? If so, I should think it was quite wrong. But if he is not allowed to give a sort of caution, is he to report the matter to the secretary of the board? What does the board do then? Is the man to be brought before the petty sessions? It might help discussion if the right hon. Gentleman would explain those points. As he has outlined the Amendment, it does not suit me at all.

I had not the opportunity of taking part in the Committee stage of this Bill, but I have had many representations made to me with regard to the provisions of the Bill, which is not very popular in farming quarters. If the Minister is anxious to get this Measure to work smoothly I can conceive of nothing more calculated to make it unpopular than the provision in this Amendment. How does he think it is going to work? Take an ordinary farm during the harvest season. The earlier part of the apple crop, we will say, has been got in. The inspector visits the farm to complain of the method of grading or marking the apples. The farmer is busy getting in his harvest. Somebody has to be sent to fetch him, and he has to leave what is essential work in order to meet the inspector because of some twopenny-halfpenny complaint about the last apples he sent under the grading and marketing scheme into the market prescribed to the sale of those apples. I ask the Minister whether he has not powers enough already, and will he not listen to the representations made from the Front Opposition Bench as to the appropriate time and place to raise these questions? It can be done by correspondence if the farmer does not comply with the rules laid down. He can be warned through the post in the ordinary way, or his consignment might even be returned to him. It might save an enormous amount of time, rather than have visits from inspectors at all hours, irrespective of what is going on in the farm, perhaps without any notice of what the particular complaint is.

After all, what is the crime of which the farmer will be accused? Some technical breach of the many regulations laid down for the marketing of his produce. All these regulations are not going to be popular, or easy to work, and if you have this inquisitorial power placed in the hands of the board, with inspectors going about at any time visiting farms and smallholdings, I am certain there will be such an outcry against the scheme that it will break down. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in the interests of his own Bill, to avoid bureaucracy as far as he can in dealing with the rather ticklish subject of agriculture. There are no people in the whole country who more value their freedom in carrying on their industry than farmers, and I say it with pride, and there is no section of the population who will more resent regulations of this kind to be carried out by minute inspection of their premises at all hours of the day, no matter what particular business they may be engaged in at the time. It will mean an enormous waste of time, and there is a good deal of complaint about the wasting of time in marketing now. Now the Minister is proposing regulations which may delay a whole morning's work because of some trifling error which the farmer is supposed to have committed. I suggest, in the interests of his own Bill, that the Minister should drop this proposal.

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for a moment to dispel some of the misrepresentations, or, rather, misapprehensions. The hon. Baronet spoke about bureaucracy. If there is one thing of which these boards cannot be accused, it is that of introducing Whitehall bureaucrats. The marketing board is going to do all this. It is not a Socialist Minister or official in Whitehall, but the board of the producers, their own board, men of their own class appointed by themselves to operate for their own benefit. If that is so, and if they are going to do the foolish and outrageous things which the hon. Baronet suggests, the first thing the producers will do at the annual meeting will be to replace them by some sensible people.

Does it not mean that the first thing they will do at their first annual meeting will be to scrap the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment?

The Amendment does not compel them to do anything. All it says is that, if they wish to do it, they shall be authorised to do it. So that it will be the act of the producers' board, and nobody else, and all this supposition about stupid intervention and inquisition is quite beside the mark. It will be their fellow-farmers who will be doing all this.

Will the consumers be allowed to inspect as well?

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman want to extend the scope of the Amendment? This is limited to the producers' board, and this inspection is for the purpose of securing compliance with the scheme. All these other suppositions are really beside the point, and I suggest that the producers' board will not want to annoy their fellow-men in doing this sort of thing at unreasonable times. It will not happen—that is all. They would be turned out, and quite rightly. This is a democratic Bill. The Noble Lord understands this Bill thoroughly as we all know, but he overlooked this point. Take his butter question. The right hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Ashley) went even further astray, and said that the inspector would poke his nose into everything going on in the farm. That is how he reads the Amendment. All I have got to say is, that if anything of that kind is to happen, he will require some further authorisation than this Amendment gives, because all that this does is to allow him to see that

"grading, marking, packing or storing the regulated product"

are in accordance with regulations. Now take the case of butter. That is a very fair illustration. Suppose a complaint comes to the board that certain of their producers are not sending butter of the right quality, or not in accord with the grading required. It is in the interest of the producers and of the whole industry that their product should be of an agreed grade and above suspicion, and it is perfectly reasonable, in the interests of the whole industry, if a case arises, that the board should be able to empower a person authorised in writing to look into the matter of which complaint is made. It is perfectly fair that they should be able to do so in their own interests, and I suggest that, as far as the criticisms were generally hostile, they were quite beside the point. I am sure that any board of any kind would want this power, and would desire to exercise it now and again where a case arose. It is entirely voluntary, but I think that they should be authorised to protect themselves and support the good name of their industry when required.

I am rather inclined to agree with the Minister with regard to some of the observations which fell from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I think that their imagination ran riot about what might happen with regard to these inspectors prying all over the place at all hours of the day. Without something of this sort, I do not see how this Bill, or any other marketing Bill, could work. The Amendment says:

"for empowering any person authorised in writing by the board for the purpose of securing compliance with the scheme."

and the scheme is for the grading, marking, packing or storing of the regulated products. If those things are not carried out in a proper manner, no marketing scheme could possibly succeed. We always hear these stories about bureaucracy, and that sort of thing, but you get it in other industries. You get real bureaucrats from Whitehall inspecting other industries, and prying into all manner of things. This is purely a visit which can be authorised by a board set up by the farmers themselves. Unless this Amendment be carried, I do not see how a scheme of this sort could work.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the motive of my right hon. Friends and myself in opposing this Amendment. What we want is, not to remove our own misapprehension, but to remove the misapprehension on the part of the farmer. It is not so much the spirit of the Amendment to which we object as its wording. In the case of those of us who have been some time in the House, familiarity with this legal phraseology breeds contempt, but that is not so with the general public outside, and I think that, if the Minister wants to allay some of the suspicion which the farmers have as to this Bill, he ought to try in another place to attain the object of this Amendment in a rather simpler way. We agree that he at any rate does not intend that an inquisitorial system should be set up, but I think he must admit that the wording he has used would not conduce to a feeling of contentment among farmers, but would rather make them suspicious of the interference to which they might be subjected. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not opposing this Amendment with any idea of impeding the administration of the Bill, but because we want to make its working easier, and we honestly believe that, if this Amendment is carried in its present form and is included in the Bill when it becomes an Act, it will not help the farmers to welcome the Bill, but will make them more anxious to defeat the schemes, or at any rate to be excluded from taking any part in them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at his Amendment from our point of view, realising that we are trying to assist him in the easier working of the Bill, and that our opposition is not merely factious.

The Minister will remember that, when this matter was discussed in Committee, this provision was very much wider in its principle than the present Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember that, when the principle of inspection was being considered, obviously a majority of the Committee were opposed to the original proposal, and the Minister said quite frankly, when he was withdrawing the original Clause, that he recognised the possibility of a great deal of misrepresentation in connection with a Clause of this kind. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) that some such machinery may be necessary, but I would point out that, while the Clause is optional—it says:

"Subject to the approval of the Minister a scheme may provide"—

and so on—the Clause is headed, by a strange irony:

"Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation."

We are asking farmers to support a scheme for the better marketing of their produce, and at the same time we are asking them to allow some Government inspector to come along—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—we are asking them to vote for a scheme which may provide that a Government inspector—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it provides for inspection through the Board—

The hon. Member has misunderstood. He is not a Government inspector at all; he is a farmers' inspector, appointed by the farmers.

I quite agree, but, so far as the farmers are concerned, this scheme is to be set up under an Act of Parliament, the board is to be appointed under an Act of Parliament, and, under one of the Clauses which the farmers are asked to support, that inspector may come along and do various things in order to see that they are complying with the scheme. With a view to helping forward the acceptance of these schemes, I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider this point. These schemes are to be put forward by agriculturists themselves, and I suggest that he should allow those who are working the scheme to decide what they think are the necessary steps under the scheme. [Interruption.] I think the Minister would serve the same purpose if, instead of using these words, he would state in general terms that the scheme may provide, in accordance with the decision of the agriculturists themselves, any necessary steps to secure compliance with the scheme. I am sure that it would be accepted in that form.

That is the Clause.

The Amendment says that any person authorised in writing by the board is to have power to enter and inspect at any reasonable time, on production of his authority, any part of the land or premises. My point is that this is part and parcel of a scheme upon which a farmer is asked to vote, and it may very well be that this is just the sort of thing that he will oppose, although it may not be in his interest to oppose it. Therefore, I suggest, that the Minister should consider the adoption of wider phraseology which does not tie down the board's inspector to enter or inspect the premises, but gives the proposers of the scheme the right to settle for themselvse the particular means that they may think necessary.

I hope the Minister will stick to his Amendment. The point he has made that this inspector, if appointed, will be appointed by the board itself, is a very good point. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to talk about the farmers being the most free individuals in the world, but, as a matter of fact, they are complaining that whenever they have a scheme the rank and file of the farmers are not loyal to the scheme. In my own county of North-amptonshire, the farmers are pressing the National Farmers' Union to arrange a national milk scheme, and are pointing out that one of their greatest difficulties at the present time is to deal with those farmers who will not play the game, but who, by under-selling, will wreck every scheme that they attempt to put into operation. I suggest that, if a farmers' board, elected by the farmers themselves, thinks that it is desirable to appoint an inspector to examine as to whether the scheme is being put into operation, that is something that the farmers have no need to be afraid of. I was very glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite say that the farmer may be brought away from his haymaking or some other task to meet the inspector. That is a great step forward since 1911 and 1912, when I was a Government inspector under the Insurance Act. In those days the farmer never came to meet us; he sent his largest dog—

Was it graded?

It was generally of the largest size. I am very glad indeed that that step forward has been made. [Interruption.] I suggest that in the scheme itself the farmers should have the power to deal with those who are not playing the game, and I think that the protests which have been made against the Amendment are beside the mark.

The really important question which this House has to consider is whether any inspection of this sort is or is not required. I venture to think that the powers which these boards will have will be absolutely adequate to safeguard the working of the schemes. Boards are to be set up which are to have more extensive and comprehensive and far-reaching powers than any other trading organisation. What reason is there for superimposing, on these full and exceptional powers, a further power of inspection? It seems to me, also, to be unfair to expect our farmers, harassed and harried as they are now, to submit to further inspection while leaving out of account altogether the inspection of similar commodities produced overseas. Only a few days ago, an eminent entomologist in my constituency, when he was spreading some butter on his bread at breakfast, found a "bug" in the butter. Being an eminent entomologist, he at once proceeded to investigate the species and see where it came from. He saw at once that it was not a British "bug," and he was able satisfactorily to prove that it had come from a distant overseas country, where no inspection exists, and where none could be made to exist by us so far as butter is concerned. I do think that, before we embark upon a scheme of inspection and pressure such as this Amendment envisages, we ought at least to try other methods, and ought only to exercise this power as a last resort and as a result of further legislation if this particular Measure breaks down.

I think that as a business proposition, if the board is to have any authority to order the grading, marking and packing of agricultural produce, there must follow some system of inspection to see that those orders are carried out. But, having said that, I think that this Amendment, although, it is a tremendous advance on the Clause that was originally in the Bill, and I congratulate the Minister upon that fact, goes a little too far. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House exactly why he desires that there should be an inspec- tor—or, as he says, a fellow-farmer, who in some instances would be worse than an inspector—who will have the power to inspect any part of his neighbour's land or premises. That is what the Amendment says. I suggest that, while it is quite necessary that the board should have the power to insist upon their standard of grading and marking and packing, they ought not to go beyond that, and, if the Minister can draft an Amendment along such lines, I feel sure that the House would agree to it; but I feel sure that no inspector ought to be able to go on to a farm and inspect the whole of the farmer's land and premises, under the pretext that he is following out the instructions of a marketing board who only desire to see that the grading, marking and packing are carried out under decent conditions.

Speaking as a farmer, and as one who hopes to become a registered producer, I have pleasure in supporting this Amendment, which I think is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to work in a proper manner. The object of this Bill is to safeguard the loyal producer, and it is the disloyal minority that we have to guard against. That is what the Amendment seeks to do, and I trust that the Minister will stick to the Amendment and that eventually it will be embodied in the Bill.

If I may follow the last speaker, I would say that this Amendment may go a great deal further than the point that he wishes to safeguard, and I should be glad if the Minister would answer this question for me. Under this Amendment, if an authorisation is once given to an individual, can that individual go and inspect at any reasonable time all the farms occupied by registered producers, whether any complaint has been received against any of them or not? As I read this Amendment, once the board has given authority to an inspector, he will have a general right to go and inspect farms where the regulated product is made. If the Minister merely desires that there should be power, when a complaint is received by the board, to inspect the premises, I do not think that anyone in the House would desire to withhold that power, but I suggest that, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at his own Amendment, be will see that it might quite easily be construed to go very much wider than that. I gathered from his speech that what he really desired was that there should he power to investigate complaints, and not that a powerful board should give roving powers of investigation to any inspector that they might choose to appoint. I think it would be of great assistance if the right hon. Gentleman could clear up that point.

I think that the opposition to this Amendment is, as the Minister has said, based upon a complete misapprehension of its intention. If, as has been suggested in earlier speeches, there were an element of bureaucracy in it, I could understand the opposition. As I appreciate the Amendment and the Bill, it is an endeavour to apply the principle of cooperation to the fullest possible extent. Is it overlooked that this is really a cooperative scheme, and, if that is so, are we to allow any partner in the co-operative scheme to work entirely on his own and to do what he thinks fit in regard to storing, grading, and packing without any regard to the effect of v/hat he does on the work of his fellows? The Minister is not desirous of imposing his authority upon any board at all, but he is saying to the board: "If you find that there is no system of co-operation among these people, but that they only pretend to co-operate, we will give you power, if you want it, to make certain inquiries and investigations." I cannot regard that as being in any way undesirable. Some safeguard is necessary. The illustration that has been given as to the desirability of inspecting overseas supplies is really an argument in favour of the point that we are making, that our produce should be above suspicion. If we stand for good produce, no one could object to any suggestion that a person should be pulled up if it is found on examination that he or she is not doing what is necessary to be done to make the scheme a success. Clause 4 says:

"Subject to the approval of the Minister a scheme may provide for all or any of the following matters:"

If in its wisdom a board does not think it necessary to adopt the Amendment, it will not do so. It can please itself as to whether or not it adopts this power. But, if we who believe in the Bill feel that it is necessary to provide for such powers, there should be no difficulty about accepting the Amendment, because there must be someone to see that the work is well done.

In spite of the Minister's arguments, I would ask him to consider this point of view. His Amendment is clearly directed to the wrong end. The point at which you want to check the marking, packing and storing of the regulated product is the point where any consignment of it comes within the possession of the board. The board will have a depot, they will receive consignments, and will probably open samples. That is the point where they want to ascertain whether the producer is doing his job properly and in accordance with their wishes. If they find a consignment wrongly packed, wrongly graded, and wrongly marked, presumably they will write to the producer and tell him the price they can get is very much lower than what they could get for the produce of other producers, and tell him what he should do. They should go on to say: "We shall be pleased to give you all the assistance in our power. We shall be glad to send to your farm, if you like, a man who will show you how to pack apples correctly." That is a very different thing from sending a man on to his land with power to go into any premises and inspect them against the wishes of the producer. In that case you are merely creating hostility to the Bill. The reason why so much hostility is shown to it is on account of the compulsion. The right way to approach this difficult problem would be to withdraw the Amendment and insert another elsewhere designed to show that the board would, if necessary, assist producers to pack, store and grade their produce properly.

Generally speaking, there is a good deal to be said for the principle of the Clause. I have had personal experience in various methods abroad. If you are to have some form of regulation, there must be some form of inspection. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) said that this was merely a co-operative concern, but he forgets that there is a possibility of a third of the co-operators being very unwilling. That introduces an important issue into the matter of compulsion. There needs to be a power of inspection, but it seems to me that the Minister goes in two directions too far and in one direction not far enough. My hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out that the real interest of the inspector is the product that is going to be placed on the market. What happens up to that point is really not his concern. Therefore, the provisions in this Clause, which give a roving commission to go all over the premises of a farm, are raising unnecessary alarm. If they are not needed, have them out. The inspector needs to go to the place where the final marketable product is actually stored. The Minister would remove a great deal of apprehension if, instead of this provision, that the inspector, having once got written permission, can go all over the place, there were a provision which only operated in the case of an actual complaint coming to the board itself, and if then the inspector were armed with authority to assist rather than to interfere.

In those two directions the Amendment goes too far and in the third it does not go far enough. It seems absurd that we should set up all this machinery and should confine the functions of the board to going to our own producers only to regulate—"interfere" is a word which the Minister would probably deprecate—what they are doing, and that at the same time there should be no control of any sort over products from abroad which are probably coming in in much larger numbers than the amount marketed by the board. If we are to provide for the one, there should be some provision for the board to satisfy itself that the conditions in which goods are marketed overseas are at least of the standard of those of our own people, who are being to some extent harassed and chased by the provisions of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would modify the Clause and limit it in two directions and extend it in the third, I believe it would remove a large amount of misapprehension from the mind of the farming community generally.

There are two ways in which this inspection may come into operation. It may be that a person has not packed his goods the right way and an inspector is asked to go down and see them. In the second place, the inspector may go down with a view to giving guidance and help. It is the most obvious thing in the world that there should be some experienced person to give these people help. I cannot understand the idea that seems to prevail on the opposite side that anyone whom the farmers appoint will have a very long nose and will go poking it into the butter, and all the rest of it, in order to create difficulty and disturbance. I should think that is the last thing an inspector would ever desire to do. He would rather work along a helpful line. I am sure experience will prove that the guidance and help of these inspectors will enable our people to produce and market their stuff as well as those who are competing with them. One need not go beyond any greengrocer's shop to see the care and attention that has been given to the grading and packing of apples, from wherever they come, to see that they are all of a very high quality, and fetching a very high price, too. I wish fruit produced in this country could command as high a price as fruit coming from abroad. I am sure this is the right way, and I am sure that it is only a question of time before our people will be able to hold their own. It will lift production on to a higher level and so bring success to agriculture.

There appears to be nothing in the Amendment that will encourage inspectors to give help. They are to criticise and to interfere. If anyone wishes to make certain that no scheme is ever put into force, he will support the Amendment because it will prevent any scheme from passing the poll. There is a good deal of suspicion about the whole of the Bill throughout the farming community. They dislike the compulsion which is being put upon them. If the Amendment is carried, people opposed to the scheme will go to every market place before the poll is taken and say, "If you vote for the scheme, you will have inspectors coming over your property at all times of the day, going through your private business and interfering with you." There is misapprehension in the House and much greater misapprehension outside. In the interest of the scheme itself I urge the Minister to withdraw the Amendment.

I will look into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Cap- tain Bourne), which is quite a good point. It is not our intention that anyone should have a roving commission of any kind, and I do not think the Clause gives it, but I will look into the matter, and, if it needs to be rectified, I will see if I can rectify it. We have had a useful discussion, and I hope the House is now prepared to come to a decision.

It has been said that this is a voluntary scheme, but it is not voluntary so far as 33⅓ per cent. is concerned, and that is a very serious point. If we want this scheme to be a success, we must make it appeal to the ordinary farmer. There is no doubt that the small minority would have no say in the election of the board. They will be a minority, and they will be absolutely powerless. As the Clause is drawn, it certainly gives power to some person—it does not even call him an inspector. The board will be composed, no doubt, of farmers who are competing with the man whose premises are to be inspected. It is not to be a Government inspector. In many ways, it would be better if it

Division No. 387.]	AYES.	[4.47 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Compton, Joseph	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Cove, William G.	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Cowan, D. M.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Alpass, J. H.	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Harbord, A.
Ammon, Charles George	Daggar, George	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Arnott, John	Dallas, George	Harris, Percy A.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Dalton, Hugh	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Ayles, Walter	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Haycock, A. W.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Hayday, Arthur
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hayes, John Henry
Barnes, Alfred John	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Barr, James	Duncan, Charles	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Batey, Joseph	Ede, James Chuter	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)	Edmunds, J. E.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Herrlotts, J.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Egan, W. H.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Benson, G.	Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)	Hoffman, P. C.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Foot, Isaac	Hollins, A.
Bowen, J. W.	Freeman, Peter	Horrabin, J. F.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)	Isaacs, George
Brockway, A. Fenner	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Brooke, W.	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brothers, M.	Gibbins, Joseph	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Gill, T. H.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Gillett, George M.	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Glassey, A. E.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Buchanan, G.	Gossling, A. G.	Kelly, W. T.
Burgess, F. G.	Gould, F.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Kinley, J.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Gray, Milner	Kirkwood, D.
Cameron, A. G.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).	Knight, Holford
Cape, Thomas	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Lang, Gordon
Charleton, H. C.	Groves, Thomas E.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Chater, Daniel	Grundy, Thomas W.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Cluse, W. S.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Law, A. (Rossendale)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawrence, Susan

was someone who is quite disinterested. It is very hard that this power is not confined to a case where a man is proved to have committed some breach of the scheme. If it had been proved that he had committed a breach of the scheme or if he were assumed to have committed a breach, then it would have been quite a different matter to enter his premises. You are not saying that. Your man can go on to the premises before there has been any breach of the scheme. It is very unfair. The Bill provides ample power in Clause 5, Sub-section 1 ( c) which says:

"For requiring the board to impose on, and recover from, any registered producer who contravenes any provision of the scheme made in pursuance of the last foregoing Section."

There you have power to deal with a man, and with that power it is quite unnecessary to ask that this further power shall be given to inspect a farm.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 125.

Lawson, John James	Palmer, E. T.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Leach, W.	Perry, S. F.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Sorensen, R.
Lees, J.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Stamford, Thomas W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Pole, Major D. G.	Strauss, G. R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Potts, John S.	Sutton, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert	Price, M. P.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Longbottom, A. W.	Pybus, Percy John	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Longden, F.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Lunn, William	Rathbone, Eleanor	Thurtle, Ernest
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Raynes, W. R.	Tillett, Ben
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Tinker, John Joseph
McElwee, A.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Toole, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.	Ritson, J.	Tout, W. J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Vaughan, David
McShane, John James	Romeril, H. G.	Viant, S. P.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Walker, J.
March, S.	Rowson, Guy	Wallace, H. W.
Marcus, M.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Markham, S. F.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Watkins, F. C.
Marley, J.	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Marshall, Fred	Sanders, W. S.	Wellock, Wilfred
Mathers, George	Sawyer, G. F.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Matters, L. W.	Scurr, John	West, F. R.
Messer, Fred	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Westwood, Joseph
Middleton, G.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mills, J. E.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Milner, Major J.	Sherwood, G. H.	Williams, David (Swansea. East)
Montague, Frederick	Shield, George William	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Morley, Ralph	Shillaker, J. F.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Shinwell, E.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Mort, D. L.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Muggeridge, H. T.	Simmons, C. J.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Palin, John Henry	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)	Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Atholl, Duchess of	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Ferguson, Sir John	Peake, Capt. Osbert
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Fermoy, Lord	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beaumont, M. W.	Fielden, E. B.	Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Ford, Sir P. J.	Remer, John R.
Blindell, James	Frece, Sir Walter de	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Ross, Ronald D.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Ganzonl, Sir John	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Boyce, Leslie	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Glyn, Major R G. C.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Savery, S. S.
Butler, R. A.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Campbell, E. T.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Haslam, Henry C.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Smithers, Waldron
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George	Hurd, Percy A.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Colman, N. C. D.	Lamb, Sir J. Q	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Colville, Major D. J.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Thompson, Luke
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Thomson, Sir F.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Macquisten, F. A.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Dalkeith, Earl of	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Marjoribanks, Edward	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Wells, Sydney R.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Eden, Captain Anthony	Muirhead, A. J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Womersley, W. J.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Captain Sir George Bowyer and

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Captain Wallace.

I beg to move, in page 6, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:

"( ) for requiring registered producers to furnish to the board such estimates, returns, accounts, and other information relating to the regulated product as the board consider necessary for the operation of the scheme."

We have just passed a very dangerous Amendment moved by the Government which threatens farmers with Peeping Toms hovering like wasps round a honey pot, and it is our business on this side of the House to try and mitigate some of the effects of such a proposal. I do not altogether like this Amendment, but at any rate it gives the board a chance of writing first of all to the unfortunate people who are going to be interfered with in this way. If the House will study the Amendment for a moment, they will Bee that there are two points which are to a certain extent modified. First, any information required must relate to the regulated product, and, secondly, the information must be necessary for the operation of the scheme. I should have been very glad if there could have been other qualifications put in, but, in view of the discussion which took place in Committee, I feel justified in moving this Amendment. I do not think that the Minister is properly seized of the opposition there is in the country to his Amendment. I move the Amendment because it is a mitigating Amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member spoke so halfheartedly of his own proposal. The Amendment has resulted from a discussion in Committee, where it was arranged that we should try and deal with the matter of accounts on this basis. The Amendment is the embodiment of what was there agreed upon by the hon. and gallant Member and his friends, and I congratulate them upon the way in which they have dealt with the undertaking they entered into. Although the hon. and gallant Member seems to be cold-hearted about it, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

It is really my Amendment, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted it.

5.0 p.m.

I think that the Minister of Agriculture should tell us, as he is so enthusiastic about the Amendment and my hon. and gallant Friend did not seem very cheerful in moving it, why a board should require accounts to be rendered. Surely, if there is one thing that should be kept private as far as the farmer or producer is concerned, it is the knowledge of what it has cost him to produce his stuff and what he gets for it. My hon and gallant Friend did not tell us why the board should require the production of the farmer's accounts. Unless the Minister is prepared to cut out that most objectionable word, I cannot see my way to support the Amendment. I do not like the Amendment. The Minister's Amendment, with which we have just dealt, was very objectionable and went far wider than he stated, but I am frankly shocked at this Amendment. I was not present in the Committee which seems to have resulted in the production of this Amendment. I can only imagine that the Minister must have produced something which was terrible, if the present Amendment is a modified form that is offered to him as a kind of peace offering. I do not mind so much the provision of estimates and returns, although I am very doubtful about the estimates. Of course, the board may require returns about the regulated product, but why a farmer's accounts should be produced for the inspection of his fellow-farmers, when very likely he has had to come under a board whose operations he does not support. That the board should then be given power to demand his accounts is most unreasonable. I could never be a party to that. Even if I was alone in my opposition to this Amendment, I should have to oppose it as far as I was able.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said with regard to the accounts. There is another thing to which the farmer objects and of which he has a great deal of fear, and that is the filling up of innumerable forms. The Amendment says:

"returns, accounts and other information relating to the regulated product as the board consider necessary."

There is no limitation whatever. The board may consider something very necessary so far as they are concerned, but it may entail a considerable amount of trouble and probably expense to the man to prepare the return.

Perhaps I may be able to dispel the apprehensions of the two hon. Members opposite. This information is necessary if the board is going to deal, say, with the milk supply. They must have from the suppliers statements with regard to the milk outlook and what is likely to be sent to the market. There are many other things which may properly be described as "accounts," but are not accounts in the way suggested by the hon. Member opposite. It will be noted that the information that is required in this Amendment is information which the board "consider necessary for the operation of the scheme." They would not be entitled to ask for other information. The Amendment is strictly limited in its extent. The board must, however, have this requisite information if it is to carry on.

Should I be in order in moving to omit the word "accounts"?

The hon. Baronet has already spoken once.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to insert the words:

"(i) a board shall not provide premises for the sale of any regulated products or commodities except with the consent of the Minister who, before giving such consent, shall consider the facilities for the sale of such products and commodities at any market situate in the area to which the scheme is applicable or in the neighbourhood of such area, and shall also consider any representations that may be made by the owner of any such market.

(ii) No slaughter-house shall be established by or for the purposes of any board except with the consent of the Minister of Health who, before giving such consent shall have regard to the facilities for slaughtering cattle at a slaughter-house provided by a local authority and likely to be affected, and no such slaughter-house shall be provided, maintained, or used except subject to such conditions as the Minister of Health may impose."

I would preface my observations by saying that I have read the Bill. When we have brought forward Amendments or used arguments from this side, we have been told on more than one occasion that we have not read the Bill. I have not only read the Bill but I have re-read it, and although I cannot claim to have any greater knowledge of it than anyone else, I do claim to have a knowledge of the Measure. The Amendment has been tabled on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations and is also supported by many urban district councils. We think that we are able to put forward a strong case for the Amendment, unless the Solicitor-General can give us some other explanation regarding the working of the Clause than we were able to extract from him when the Bill was in Committee. The object of the Amendment is to protect the interests of existing market authorities. In protecting those marketing interests, we also desire to see that full use is made of the existing facilities. These are very praiseworthy and laudable objects and I do not think that the Minister can take exception to them.

It may be argued that the Bill does not contain any provision which enables, authorises or empowers any board which may be set up under the Bill in any way to ignore, disregard, overrule or override the existing law in regard to existing markets. Under the law there is a prohibition against the setting up of any new markets within a radius of six and two-thirds miles of any existing authorised market. It is an offence under the Markets and Fairs Act, 1847, Section 13, for anyone to sell a marketable commodity outside the market, unless he does it as a vendor in his own shop and on his own premises. In spite of these safeguards we hold that in certain cases the interests of existing markets may be jeopardised under the Bill. Take the case where the board is dealing with a regulated product and another commodity is produced out of that regulated product. It could sell that commodity on its own premises in direct competition with the existing markets, and that might very well lead to the endangering of existing market facilities.

When you set up a market you seek to get as many people as possible to go to the market. You do not want cer- tain dealers going to one market and others going to another market. You want as big a concentration of the selling and buying public round one particular market as possible, in order to stimulate competition and to promote the interests of producer and consumer. Under our Amendment we do not try to prohibit the setting up of any new slaughterhouses, but say that new slaughtering facilities shall not be provided except by the consent of the Minister, and we believe that consent will not be unreasonably withheld. The Amendment would leave the absolute discretion in the hands of the Minister to decide whether or not a new slaughterhouse should be established. There would be no compulsion on the Minister one way or another. We think it is fair to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister, who will be unbiased.

It may be said and probably will be said, that power for the Minister to do that exists under Clause 1 (7) which provides that:

"If the Minister, after making such modifications (if any) as aforesaid, is satisfied that the scheme will conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of the regulated product, he may, after consultation with the Board of Trade, lay before each House of Parliament a draft of the scheme …."

That Sub-section may give the idea that when a scheme is under consideration the question of additional marketing facilities will necessarily come under review. I do not take that view of Subsection (7). Under that Sub-section the scheme would be put through and it might lead to the extension of marketing facilities and the building of more slaughterhouses which were never contemplated in the original scheme, and to which no mention was made in the original scheme. Therefore, I regard those words as failing to safeguard the existing mark-its. Many thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money have been sunk in the provision of marketing facilities, and while we do not ask for prohibition in regard to any further marketing facilities we do say that there shall not be a wild rush of speculators or any precipitate action on the part of the board to set up markets without due consideration to the existing facilities and needs. It may well be that, if we are not careful, instead of better business we shall have muddled markets. Therefore, we feel that the right way to view this matter is to leave it in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, so that he may take into account, before giving sanction to further marketing facilities, the full rights of the existing market authorities and see that they are adequately safeguarded and protected.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am glad that the Solicitor-General is here, because he may be able to clear up a doubtful point which is a matter of concern for the local authorities. The urban district authorities at their annual meeting desired this Amendment to be moved in order that the point may be cleared up. There is considerable doubt as to what is in the Bill. Are municipal slaughterhouses and markets and private slaughterhouses and markets treated alike under the Bill? In small country towns the markets are mostly private. There is great anxiety in North Lincolnshire as to what is going to happen to the local markets when the Bill comes into force. People come in from the country with their poultry and their eggs and if they are not to be allowed to sell them in the open market, it will be a great hardship.

I support the Amendment. My hon. Friends have dealt with markets. There is a considerable amount of alarm as to the position of the board in regard to the provision of premises, and I hope the Minister will give some idea of what is in his mind in regard to the provision of buildings. This is a matter of importance to the producer, because he is not in the position to provide the capital necessary to erect buildings for distribution purposes. It would be unfair to allow a board to take up public money to provide buildings in substitution of those already provided by ordinary traders, unless it can be proved that the ordinary traders are doing something which is not correct. I hope that the Minister will relieve the anxiety which exists throughout the country as to the power of these boards to provide buildings and premises in substitution of those which legitimate distributors have already provided at considerable expense, and also their power to increase the liabilities which will be thrown upon local producers.

The time will be far distant before we can expect such a development in the marketing of agricultural produce as will require a great expenditure in the provision of alternative premises. We on this side of the House do not yield to hon. Members opposite in our desire that as little as possible should be done to disturb the existing marketing arrangements of local authorities, but there appears to be many fears regarding the operation of this Bill on the part of municipal authorities and urban district councils with regard to their own markets. There has been considerable development of agricultural markets in various towns, which have gone to considerable expense to improve the facilities and to provide the necessary accommodation. In my own constituency, the town of Nantwich has been able to gather a good deal of produce at their market and to dispose of it satisfactorily, and, if it is suggested that the county of Cheshire and the agricultural producers in that county may form a new market, then the town of Nantwich would have some fear that their interests might be in jeopardy and that no consideration would be given to their future. A good deal of this apprehension is, I believe, misplaced, and the Minister will be able to give us a satisfactory explanation. At the same time, I feel that he would not be doing wrong if he accepted the Amendment. It gives an assurance to these authorities and to other people concerned that they will have a fair and square deal when these matters are considered.

When new schemes are put into operation some interests must be affected, and one can easily imagine that a widespread proposal of this description will have some repercussions here and there. It is with a desire to minimise these repercussions that the Amendment, I understand, has been moved. I support the principle of the proposal, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance on the point and, if possible, adopt it. A board with such power, perhaps too much unrestricted power, would not become a democratic body which the Minister desires but such an autocratic body as might rule out of consideration things other than their own immediate concern. It is with the object of securing that there shall be a first and a second thought given to interests which are now in existence, particularly relating to municipalities that before something else takes their place, it is proposed that they shall be given an opportunity of stating their case for the consideration of the Minister of Agriculture. It would give the Minister some control over the board, which is a board to deal with the marketing of agricultural produce, and, therefore, might not be always willing to consider whether something that they may do in a locality would have an adverse effect upon another section of the community. Seeing that many towns have gone to a good deal of expense in providing accommodation for the marketing of agricultural produce it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Minister should view with some friendliness the concern of those people who, if there is to be a change, should have an opportunity of stating their case before any conclusions are reached. It is with the object of getting a reply from the Minister on this subject that I support the Amendment.

Hon. Members may be quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture will take all the ways open to him, and there are many under the Bill, of seeing that everybody who is affected by a scheme will be heard before it is put into force. It is not the desire of the Minister to do away with existing facilities. The object of the Bill is to increase the facilities for marketing, not to take away those which already exist, but, on the other hand, it would not be right to lay down that under no condition could a board set up fresh marketing places, whether retail or wholesale. In the first instance, I imagine that most boards will confine themselves to the building of such premises as are necessary for the purpose of sorting, grading, and collecting the produce, wholesale, and the markets which already exist, so long as they are efficient, will no doubt continue to be used for the purpose of disposing of the produce. On the other hand, there may be cases where, after experience, it is found that either because of the lack of markets or because of the inconvenience of certain markets it may be necessary to start a fresh market. That can be done by any individual at the present time so long as he does not infringe the existing legal rights of the market. The Bill will not in itself enable anybody to in- fringe these legal rights, but there is a clear distinction between the infringement of the legal rights of a market and a possible interference with its business.

Every fresh market and shop interferes with an existing market and existing shops, and that has always been the system upon which marketing has been carried on except in those cases where you have a legal franchise conferred upon the owner of a particular market. In those cases the owner of the market will not find himself in any way injured by the Bill, and, even if he thinks his commercial rights may be infringed, he will have every opportunity of making representations to the Minister of Agriculture, either at a public inquiry or through the investigation committee, and, if the Minister considers that it is unwise, from the public point of view, he will be able to take the necessary steps.

The hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) asked whether there is any difference in the position of municipal authorities and private markets under the Bill. They may be in a different position according to their franchise, but, as municipal and private markets, they are in no different position because neither of these markets is dealt with by the Bill. The point in his mind was the possible withholding from the markets by sellers of goods which had customarily been sold there. The answer to that, of course, is that, if the market is as it should be, the most efficient place for the disposal of the goods, it will no doubt continue to be used, but, if, on the other hand, either owing to the facilities of the market itself or owing to the unfortunate practice which sometimes prevails among purchasers, it ceased to be an efficient place for the sale of agricultural produce, no doubt the board would take other steps to dispose move efficiently of their produce, so that the consumers may benefit to the full extent.

Do I understand that the board will have the power to prevent the sale of any particular product in any particular market?

It will not do it in that form. It will market it in its own way, which will imply that it cannot be marketed in another way. It will not prohibit it being sold in a specific place, but it will say that it must be sold in some other way, it may be through the board itself, if it is graded, or it may send it up straight to London. It may be uneconomical to sell, say, fruit in a local market. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that that is one of the objects of the Bill, in order that you may get better marketing. Obviously, it would be unwise to do anything which would encourage the persistence of uneconomic markets. So long as existing markets maintain their efficiency, or make themselves efficient, for disposing of the articles for sale the board will no doubt continue to use them. There is no question of the Bill authorising any infringement of any legal right. The only possible result is that the market owner by reason of another market being set up may lose business, just as he may do today if someone has the enterprise to set up a market. I am sure that the House would not desire the board to be in any worse position than any private individual as regards that matter. I hope, with this explanation, that the hon. Member will be satisfied that the Bill gives ample protection to anyone who desires to make representations that their market is liable to suffer; and it is obviously one of the matters which the Minister will be bound to take into consideration.

I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General for his explanation. May I sum up his observations in this way. The Bill does not in any way override the rights and privileges of existing markets, and does not allow any rights and privileges of a market to be set aside. If the charter of a market says that no public market shall be held within 10 miles, this Bill does not allow that to be done. The learned Solicitor-General says he does not see why a marketing board should not sell its produce in the cheapest way, that is to say, that if a market, whether private or municipal, is managing its affairs badly in the opinion of the board, it is hard that the producers should be obliged in any way to sell their products in that market. With that I agree. But about another point I have some difficulty. It is said that the Minister, when a scheme is put up to him, will sanction any proposals. He will, I take it, if there is a modification of this scheme, have to sanction it, and he will be the person to decide whether any additional marketing facilities should be allowed by the board. I think I must agree with that proposal. I am not fully satisfied, perhaps, that everything should be left to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister is not satisfied himself, for this will involve a great deal of trouble. However, I do not see that there is any other alternative to the Minister, who is responsible to this House.

I must, however, call attention to a point which I raised in Committee, namely, the provisions in Clauses 12 and 13, which enable public money to be advanced to these boards. This public money may be used to enable these marketing boards to compete unfairly with existing municipal or private markets or municipal and private slaughterhouses. Let the best man win, but is it fair to weight the scales in favour of one particular form of enterprise, namely, the marketing board, seeing that no public money is given to the municipal or private market and slaughterhouse? If the House will look at Clauses 12 and 13 they will see provision made for short-term loans and long-term loans. The short-term loans are for only two years and they are for initial expenses, and therefore any apprehensions that the money may be used to set up markets are unfounded. But in Sub-section (3) of Clause 12 a short-term loan under this Clause:

"Shall not be renewed unless the renewal is recommended by the appropriate agricultural marketing facilities committee, and that committee shall not recommend the renewal unless they are satisfied that the board are in a position to repay the loan forthwith,"—

and these are the words which follow, to which I would direct attention:

"that the renewal is required to provide for additional services which the board propose to undertake."

Therefore, at the end of two years, if the board wish to start a marketing scheme or market, and the agricultural facilities committee recommend it, there is no prohibition against renewing the loan for extra facilities, that is to say, for setting up markets in opposition to existing markets. Then the long-term loans may be used for the same purpose. The position is not as simple as the Solicitor-General said. I appreciate the legal point of view; it is quite watertight and fair; but I am a little concerned as to what use might be made of the money given under these powers.

It is quite clear that the amount available and the limitations on its use in Clauses 12 and 13, ensure that there can be no effective competition in any sense with the markets to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. In the case of the short-term loans the amount would be very limited, and it is conditional on the board having to prove, first, that they can repay what they owe, and, secondly, that the renewal is required to provide for additional services which the board propose to undertake. In regard to long-term loans, if hon. Members will look at the end of Clause 13 they will see the words:

"Provided that the amount outstanding of the loans shall not at any time exceed £100,000."

That is for the whole of England. A large market obviously spends vastly more than that in the provision of one market. It has already been stated that the city of Sheffield spent £400,000 on one market. Therefore it is clearly not intended to use this money for purposes of that kind in any effective sense. In any case the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will recognise that the scheme has to be approved by the marketing facilities committee. The money would be spent for the provision of storage, the initial provision of apparatus, and things of that sort. The fact that it has to be distributed amongst the whole of the boards of Great Britain shows that it can be used only for purposes of that kind. I am sure that no competition of any effective kind can conceivably arise. It is clear for what kind of purpose the boards would require the loans.

I understood the Solicitor-General to say that he has full sympathy with this Amendment, but that it is unnecessary. I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I understood him to say that the Bill, as drafted, does give to the boards power to provide both wholesale and retail stores if they so desire, and, further, that the Bill gives the boards power to establish alternative markets. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to state that the boards will not be able to infringe the legal rights of existing markets. That is true, and I appreciate the fact. But I would draw attention to Clause 4 of the Bill, and paragraph (d), which says that the boards may take power to regulate the price at which a commodity can be sold:

"and the persons to, or through the agency of, whom, the product …. may be sold."

So while it is true that the boards would not establish alternative markets in the sense of being competitive markets directly, they could establish a market, and under Clause 4 they could insist that the whole of the agricultural products be sent to that particular market, and so be in active competition with present undertakings. What I have in mind is this: In my own division there is the township of Spalding. Some weeks ago, at the instance of the urban district council, I asked the Minister whether it was wise for them to spend the ratepayers' money in establishing a new cattle market, and whether I could have an undertaking that nothing in this Bill would injure the prospects of that new cattle market. The Minister then replied that he could not definitely commit himself. Let us presume that the urban council proceeds, spends this money and establishes a new cattle market, and that then the board comes along and establishes another market, or directs the producers in that district to divert their stock to another existing market. The urban district council will have spent a considerable sum of the ratepayers' money in granting facilities for the marketing of fat stock in the township of Spalding, and the board under this Bill may direct that the fat stock be sent to an alternative existing market.

There is another point. If it is not the desire of the promoters of the Bill that these alternative and competitive markets should be established, what is the objection to accepting the Amendment? The Amendment definitely says that the board shall not provide premises for the sale—not for the packing or grading, but for the sale—of any regulated products, except with the consent of the Minister. Before the Minister gives that consent he has to take into consideration the existing facilities. Surely that is giving the Minister all the power that he desires, and to an extent it would certainly safeguard local authorities with regard to existing markets. The next paragraph of the Amendment asks that the Minister of Health, before giving permission for new slaughtering facilities, shall take into account the slaughter-houses already established and under the control of the local authorities. I think the Amendment is very reasonable. The Minister and the learned Solicitor-General have in fact accepted the principle of it, but they say that the Amendment is not necessary. No doubt there are certain people who fear that there may be a danger of competitive markets being established, and local authorities generally have a feeling that there is a danger of their markets being hampered. With these points in view I hope that the Minister even now will accept the Amendment.

There are so many points in this Bill that are really psychological, that I would like to raise that issue at this point. I think the learned Solicitor-General rather forgets that his right hon. Friend the Minister made a terrific onslaught on local markets and marketing conditions in his Second Reading speech. As a result many of these markets have a genuine fear that the Bill is directed against them. I am satisfied that the Solicitor-General's explanation, that the legal rights of existing markets will be protected under the Bill, is correct, and we are grateful for that statement. But there is in the country towns a very serious fear that the Bill has been directed against country markets. Every opportunity should be taken of inserting in the Bill provisions which will ensure that that feeling does not persist. The Minister knows that there are several of us on this side who wish this Bill to be as well received as possible in country districts. I believe that if the Amendment were inserted it would not spoil the Bill but would improve the psychological value of its presentation to the public.

The Solicitor-General gave no reason why he could not accept the Amendment. He did not even refer to it. He made a general statement about the position of schemes under the Bill, but made no reference to the Amendment and no reference to slaughterhouses. I do not see why we should not have an explanation why the Amendment is not possible. I believe it would assist materially in the country districts if it were inserted in the Bill. The Solicitor-General referred to the possibility of the Minister using his powers to protect the rights of local markets. He gave us no instance where he could use his power to protect local rates. Perhaps he referred to Clause 8, Sub-section (4). If we have an assurance from the Government that they mean to interpret that Clause in the right spirit, as regards the position of old and traditional markets, it will help us.

There is nothing which we can take away from this Debate which will help us to get these schemes considered, in the country districts, in the best possible light. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us assistance in that respect. This is rather a case of dignity and impudence. We have the dignity and tradition of the old markets which have been established from time immemorial in towns like Saffron Walden and we have, against that, the impudence of a modern marketing scheme, with the powerful assistance of this Measure competing with the old tradition of the country markets. Unless we receive some safeguard in the nature of this Amendment, which is totally harmless to the Bill and is supported by powerful organisations, it will be difficult even for those who are inclined to be friendly towards the Bill, in country districts to regard it in a favourable light.

I desire to explain why I, personally, cannot vote for this Amendment if it is carried to a Division. It seems to me that it would prevent a board from establishing a shop in which to sell its produce unless it obtained the consent of the Minister. What I, personally, have endeavoured to do in connection with this Bill has been to improve it and make it a better instrument for the farmer. If a board think that farmers can sell their produce better by having a shop of their own in any locality, I do not wish to put impediments in the way. Particularly, I do not want it to be under the permission of the Minister, who is a Minister of State and a politician, and I wish to keep the State separate as far as pos- sible from all these trading organisations. The Amendment appears to err in the direction of not being quite fair to the farmers' boards, and it brings in the Minister, to which I, as a strong individualist, object. We have had the assurance of the Solicitor-General that nothing in the Bill interferes with the rights and privileges of markets and with that assurance I am content. As long as old-established markets which have existed under charters or Acts of Parliament or the like for many years, are not interfered with in their rights, I do not see why a board should be hampered in deciding in what way it will sell the produce. I want to see the board selling the produce to the best advantage of the farmers.

I have listened to the speech of the Noble Lord with great pleasure, because it shows that he is consistent in this matter—far more so than his hon. Friends behind him who have previously urged that there is "too much Minister" in the Bill, and that the freedom given to the boards is not sufficient. I think it idle when we are discussing this Bill to say that it will not affect certain vested interests in connection with the distribution of agricultural produce. In my opinion, the Bill would be useless if it did not affect some vested interests which are adverse to the agricultural producer and also to the great consuming public. In regard to many agricultural products, we want to reduce the margin between the price which the producer receives and the price which the consumer has to pay. The great difficulty with regard to many agricultural products at present is that the producer receives no more than the bare cost of production, while the consumer has to pay a figure that is far above the cost of production and the legitimate costs of distribution.

It is essential that a board should have freedom, not only to use existing channels in the form of markets, as I hope they will do to a very large extent, but also where necessary to set up new channels in both wholesale and retail markets. As regards meat, I agree that many large corporations have gone to large expenditure in creating up-to-date places for the slaughter of stock, but there are other places where such expenditure has not been undertaken and where these facilities are not available We want meat factories where every process in regard to meat will be dealt with properly. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment which would curb the power of the boards to make the best possible use of up-to-date methods for distributing regulated products.

May I now appeal to the House to conclude this discussion. I think it has brought out the fact that the general desire of the House is not so much that the Clause should be amended in the way proposed as that an opportunity should be given to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General of making a statement on the position of the statutory market authorities. He has now done so, and I think his statement will be regarded as satisfactory. The case for the Bill could not have been more aptly stated than it has been by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Major Dudgeon). We want these boards to be free to improve the marketing of their products for their own benefit, and the House has already received an assurance with regard to the position of the statutory authorities which is the main point of the Amendment.

I am sorry that I was not here when the assurance to which the Minister refers was given with regard to the municipal markets, but I wish to say that there is very genuine disquiet on the part of municipal authorities with respect to the powers given under this Bill. I think the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) hit the nail on the head when he said that the Bill would enable a producer's board to set up a shop, probably in a consuming area, to sell regulated products. That shop would not, of course, be a market, but it would operate exactly like a market in active opposition to and in competition with municipal markets. I do not know what are the legal rights of market authorities in all parts of the country, but certain municipal markets can only operate within a radius of six miles round the market itself. They fear that the provisions of the Bill may militate against their interests. They genuinely fear that markets may be set up, with graded and regulated products, in a producing area which will actively operate against municipal markets in the great consuming areas. Reference has already been made to the manner in which some of the municipalities have brought their markets up to date. Sheffield has spent on one abattoir and wholesale meat market £350,000, and on a retail market £50,000. Liverpool and Manchester have undertaken enormous expenditure on bringing their markets up to date and one can see that these authorities have a perfect right to be suspicious about the operation of the Bill. I would like the Minister to give some assurance that those markets which have been made thoroughly up to date, will not be prejudicially affected by the Bill.

Despite the Minister's request that we should not prolong the discussion of this Amendment, I fear I must intervene as one of the Members of this House—perhaps one of the few Members—not wholly satisfied with the way in which this matter is being left. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) takes a view with which I generally sympathise. He does not like leaving too much power in the hands of the Minister. When we consider the two parts of the Amendment, we find that it proposes, as regards markets, to leave the decision in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture and as regards slaughterhouses to leave the decision in the hands of the Minister of Health, but all that the Amendment asks is that the Minister should have regard to the facilities already provided. I hold that the Amendment is an extraordinarily moderate proposal on the part of the municipal authorities.

It would prevent a board from having a shop.

It is not a question of a shop, and I wish to show the Noble Lord exactly how the proposal in the Bill may operate. A shop may be of any size. It may actually be indistinguishable from a market; it may be alongside an existing market. I am in thorough agreement with other hon. Members as to the desirability of getting the consumer into the closest touch with the producer, but I am bound to point out that in many places there are retail markets, sometimes very old traditional markets, where the producers of such things as eggs and butter, or the wives of the producers, attend week by week and sell the produce of their farms direct to the consumer. You cannot get closer touch between consumer and producer than that. You cannot eliminate the middleman to a greater degree. I wish the House to consider what will be the effect of the Bill on retail markets of that kind, such as the Barnstaple pannier market.

Undoubtedly, under the Bill registered producers can be compelled to sell their produce only through certain channels, and they may be debarred from going to the traditional local retail market. The Solicitor-General said there was no intention of infringing the legal rights of market authorities. Probably not, but if nobody in the neighbourhood is allowed to sell in the market, then the market will not be of much use. The Minister might say that that is an unreasonable supposition, but I do not think so. Under the arrangement in the Bill, will the small producers of poultry, eggs, butter, fruit and the like, who have been selling for generations in these local markets, be allowed to continue doing so? Supposing they are not registered producers. At present they pay an annual toll to the local council for the right to sell in the market. Will they be free to continue paying their dues and taking their produce to these markets; will the members of the public be there to buy and will they be allowed to buy? Or, under this scheme, will it be possible to say to them, "You are not registered producers, or, if you are, we have our own system of marketing, and this simple system of getting directly into touch with the consumer does not suit our scheme which is larger and on more grandiose lines"?

6.0 p.m.

I am not satisfied and I do not think that my constituents are satisfied, as far as they are able to understand the Bill up to the present, with the position as regards interference with existing markets, and all we ask in the Amendment is that the Minister should give five minutes of his time to consider all these matters before setting up either the shop of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot or the market of somebody else. We only ask that the Minister before setting up any of these new organisations should satisfy himself that the new organisation is in the interests of the public and the producers and is not going to interfere with the interests of those who have been in the habit of using an existing market. Reference has been made to the large sums of the ratepayers' money spent in different parts of the country in building great covered markets, but that is the least part of the question. It is a means of getting the stuff direct to the consumer, and I want to be assured, where we have this simple system, that has been used for many generations and has operated usefully to the small producer, that we are not having in this Bill, under some newfangled process, something which will do away with the present useful system. Practically nothing has been said on the question of slaughter-houses. I cannot conceive what can be the Government's reason for opposing such a simple and moderate proposal as that the Minister of Health should consider a scheme setting up a new slaughter-house and decide whether it is really necessary when there is an existing slaughter-house. Much as I dislike the interference of the Minister, and much as I agree with the Noble Lord on that point, I should have thought that in a matter of this kind it would be reasonable, because I cannot conceive of any better authority to consider the subject, and somebody should have a little control over people who may be rather led away with a desire to carry out the whole of their scheme thoroughly and who may say, "The existing slaughter-house is not good enough; we want something much bigger and more modern."

I want to have someone, when we have not an unlimited amount of capital to invest in these things, to say that they are going at least to consider whether it will be an improvement or not. Nobody has said from the Government Bench that the acceptance of this Amendment would interfere with the operation of the Bill. It would do a great deal to satisfy public opinion, and particularly the opinion of municipal authorities, and I cannot understand why the Amendment, which cannot do any harm and may be very useful in putting just a little check on the exuberance of some of those who will control these new marketing schemes, cannot be accepted by the Government. I hope the Mover of the Amendment will press it to a Division, on which case I shall certainly vote for it.

I do not want to turn a deaf ear to the Minister's appeal to get on to something else, but he has shown himself, as ever, a super-optimist in suggesting that the learned Solicitor-General has satisfied all of us. The more I listened to the Solicitor-General, the more my admiration increased for his skill at skating on thin ice and avoiding the unpleasant point at issue. He never alluded to the real point. He seems to have satisfied the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) about something to do with a shop—I believe that they want to set up some kind of shop between them—but some of the rest of us are anxious about the matter, and I cannot understand the continued opposition of the Minister to this very reasonable suggestion. The Solicitor-General said that the existing markets will not have their statutory rights and privileges interfered with, but unless I have entirely misread the Bill, it will give these boards the right to set up their own methods of marketing, and it gives them the power to say, "You can only market in the way that we wish." If that is so, obviously the particular regulated product may not be sold at that existing market, but must be sold in the other, and therefore you are interfering with the statutory rights and privileges of existing markets, although not perhaps from a legal point of view.

There is a very real danger, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has pointed out, there is a possibility that local boards under this Bill may want to splurge with a completely new and up-to-date market. This Amendment only proposes a little break or check. Those who represent rural England are not concerned with £400,000 markets in Sheffield, but with something much more modest and with amounts which can quite easily come out of the financial provisions of this Bill, under which a special institution can be set up by a board in spite of, in opposition to, in competition with, either private or municipally-owned institutions already in exstence. We are only asking for a little check and for the Minister to have consideration and a final veto.

This matter has not been satisfactorily answered by the Solicitor-General. He has put a certain legal aspect, but he has not touched the point that we have tried to argue. This is a matter about which existing markets are really anxious, because if this board says, "In the interests of carrying out our new activities, we must have a place of our own, a shop perhaps," you will immediately remove the whole of that product out of the channels that that market has been set up, possibly at great cost, to handle. I hope the Minister will realise what is behind the Amendment and give it sympathetic consideration in another place.

Whether the Amendment is necessary seems to depend on the answer to quite a simple question, which perhaps the Solicitor-General will be good enough to answer. That question is: Can a board provide premises for the sale of products otherwise than as part of a scheme? As I read the Bill, it cannot. If it is part of a scheme, the opening line of Clause 4 shows that a scheme has got to be subject to the approval of the Minister, and Clause 1 provides that anyone affected by a scheme has the right of being heard. The whole point of the Amendment is that owners of markets and slaughter-houses should have the right of being heard, but if they have already got that right, the Amendment is wholly unnecessary. On the other hand, if these premises can be provided otherwise than as part of a scheme, then I think the Amendment is justified, because they have no right of being heard.

I have had a great many representations from local authorities in my constituency, who are perturbed about this question, but my view has been that this alternative selling provision can only be part of a scheme. I see the learned Solicitor-General nodding his head, and if that is so, I cannot see that this Amendment will add anything to the powers that owners of markets have already got under Clause 1. If the Solicitor-General would give me that assurance, so that it could get into print, I think it would do a good deal to remove the fears of local authorities and owners of markets.

I am afraid that I did not refer to the pro- visions of the Bill before, because I had been warned by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that I must not do so because he had already read them very carefully. I was sure the whole House had in mind the provision to which the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has just referred, as (regards inquiries. Certainly my view is that any provision of marketing facilitities of this sort would have to be part of a scheme, and objection could be raised when the scheme was advertised. The objector could appear at the inquiry and put his case, and the Minister would then have to consider it and would have to determine whether it was right or wrong before approving the scheme.

Does the learned Solicitor-General give us a definite assurance on that point, that any marketing facilities must be part of a scheme?

Do I understand that if a scheme has the approval of the Minister, and does not include powers to provide a market, and it is found at a later date that a market or shop is required, there is no possible means under the scheme of getting the market or shop erected?

My view is that if marketing facilities of the type with which we are dealing are to be provided, they must be mentioned in the scheme, and if it was found on a subsequent date that some further facilities were required then an amendment of the scheme would have to be made to make the scheme cover it. As in the case of a private Bill, if one wants power to do anything of that sort, one must have it expressly mentioned in the Bill, or get another Bill giving power to do what is required.

Can the learned Solicitor-General give an assurance with regard to the following point? Where a local authority own market rights in a town—for instance, a cattle market—under some very ancient charter, would it be possible under this Bill for a board to promote a scheme and operate it, setting up a rival market in that town? Would the Minister give his sanction to a scheme which would conflict directly with the rights received by a local authority under a charter?

It is impossible to answer a recondite question of that kind. It must depend on the precise proposals put up. The rights of statutory market authorities are defined, and their cases may be heard, as my hon. and learned Friend has explained, but it is impossible for anyone now to say for all time what would happen in a particular case.

In view of the explicit and definite assurance of the learned Solicitor-General, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 22, after the word "that," to insert the words:

"except in the case of a substitutional scheme."

This is purely consequential. As there is no initial poll for the setting up of a substitutional scheme, the question of the suspension of powers on the declaration of a poll does not arise.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5—(Miscellaneous Provisions Of Schemes)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:

"(e) for removing from the list of registered producers the name of any producer who has ceased to produce the regulated product and has made application to have his name so removed, and for relieving such a producer from all financial liability with respect to the scheme from the date on which his name is so removed."

Under the Bill as it stands, a registered producer would incur certain liabilities by virtue of being such, with regard to dealing with the products of which he is the producer and also certain financial liabilities. Those liabilities may be voluntary on his part, but if he happens to be in a minority, they may be liabilities to which he has himself not agreed and which have been compulsorily placed upon him. There is no provision that I can find in the Bill by which he could obtain relief from the liabilities which he had incurred when he ceased himself to be a registered producer, and I think it only right and just that in such a case he should obtain relief. I understand that the Minister is accepting the Amendment very largely, and so I need not make any further statement in regard to it at the moment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept in substance the first part of this Amendment, and to insert it in the Third Schedule, which seems to be the more appropriate place for it. One of the matters for which a scheme must provide, therefore, will be for the removal from the register of producers of the names of persons who have ceased to be producers or are exempted from registration. The last part of the Amendment as to relieving such a producer from all financial liability from the date when his name is removed, obviously cannot be accepted. The result of accepting it will be that although a person has been on the register and has obtained all the benefits of a scheme up to a certain date, and although the board incurs debts on his behalf as well as on behalf of other registered producers, he can, the moment he takes his name off, be relieved from all liability for past debts as well as for future debts. Clearly that would be just neither to the other registered producers nor to the debtors, who would naturally look to him, among other people, to make a contribution in the winding-up, if there were a winding-up. The point of the assessment of his liability is dealt with in the Second Schedule, in paragraphs 7 and 8. Paragraph 7 says:

"In the event of the winding up of a board, every person who, at any time during the relevant period."

In paragraph 8 "relevant period" is defined as meaning:

"(a) in a case where, before the commencement of the winding up, the scheme has been revoked, the year immediately before the revocation of the scheme;

(b) in any other case, the year immediately before the commencement of the winding up."

So that it would read

"in the event of the winding up of a board, every person who, at any time during the preceding year, was a registered producer, shall be liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board"—

and so on. That means that after his removal from the register, he will remain liable during a year up to the winding-up, and in that period one assumes that all the debts which had been incurred during the time he was a registered pro- ducer and all the liabilities which had been incurred will have been settled. Then he will get complete freedom.

That applies only in the case of winding-up, but suppose a man leaves a district and goes right away, does he incur liabilities for which he has not received benefit?

Not as regards the future. There will be no fresh liabilities on him. Once he ceases to be a registered producer and ceases to be on the register, he can incur no further liabilities, but he cannot get out of any liabilities which may have been incurred during the time he was a registered producer. The question of drawing the dividing line will only arise if there is a winding-up shortly after he ceases to be a registered producer. Only in that case is any difficulty likely to arise, and that case has been dealt with by making him still liable for a period of 12 months, roughly, after he has ceased to be a registered producer, provided a winding-up takes place during that period. I think the hon. Member will see that that is the only fair way from all points of view of dealing with it.

The point raised by my hon. Friend is important. I am glad that the Government will meet the first part of the Amendment by their own Amendment in the Schedules. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, as I understand the contention of the Solicitor-General, the words proposed would not be fair, because a man might get his name removed from the register when he knew, or had reason to know, that the board was hopelessly insolvent, and, because, although he had been a large participator in the transactions of the board during the previous months, his liability would be ended and it would be passed on to his friends. I think that there is something in that, although I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is exactly the same in regard to a limited liability company. If a man sells his shares, he gets rid of his liability, but people who do not sell their shares retain their liability.

The point that my hon. Friend has most in mind is in regard to a man who merely ceases to produce, and has his name taken off the register. My hon. Friend wants to know how long that man's liability is to continue, and the reply of the Government is that it is to continue for 12 months. For 12 months that man still has a share of liability, but the Second Schedule says that that liability must only be in proportion to the amount of trade he has done. Therefore, if he has been a big trader, he will have heavy liability, and if he has been a small trader he will have less liability. Every month his liability will decrease, because in the first month it will be in respect of 11 months' trading, and at the end of the second month in respect of 10 months' trading, and so on, until at the end of 12 months his liability will be extinguished. That, I understand, is the position under the Bill. It is not a very satisfactory position, and I would like to see some method by which, when a man leaves the scheme, he can sever all liabilities, if necessary, by putting up a certain sum. He ought to be able to understand what his liability is, and the arrangement in the Bill does not seem to be very satisfactory. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could find a better one, it would be a distinct improvement in the Bill, because the mere fact that farmers would still have a liability continuing for 12 months after they had ceased to have anything to do with the board would be a source of great anxiety to many of them.

We have come to a point of some complexity. I do not altogether agree with my right hon. Friend's reading of the Solicitor-General's statement. I understand the Solicitor-General to say that the liability would cease after one year only in cases where there was a winding-up. That is a point which ought to be made clear. Supposing a man had been connected with certain schemes and had drawn certain profits for five years, or even longer, and then gave one year's notice, he might well be liable in strict justice for some proportionate share of the liabilities of those schemes. There would have to be some system of auditing in order to apportion his liability. I support the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that in such cases it should be possible for a man when he withdraws to ascertain definitely what his liability would be if he ceased to be a member, and he should be allowed by a certain money payment to be scot free when he withdraws. It must necessarily be determined by accountancy, and, in order to avoid injustice, this point ought to be cleared up before the Bill becomes law.

I did not deal before with other liabilities apart from winding-up, because I did not quite appreciate that this Amendment was linked with that as well. The position is that there are only two ways of making a person liable to contribute. The first is under Clause 6, which enables the board to recover from every registered producer a contribution; and, secondly, under the Second Schedule in the case of a winding-up. As regards Clause 6, the liability there ceases immediately upon the cessation of registration, because once a person ceases to be a registered producer, no claim for a contribution can be made upon him at all. As regards winding-up, however, there is a provision that you can look back 12 months, just as you can now under the Companies' Act, in order to see who has to contribute to the winding-up. If during that 12 months a man has been registered, then, according to the rule in paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, he will have to make some contribution towards the winding-up, if any contribution under that rule is due from him. Apart from that liability in a winding-up, he has no liability to contribute the moment he ceases to be registered.

At the end of 12 months he knows he is clear?

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:

"(e) for requiring the register of producers to be open for inspection at such times as may be specified by the scheme, and for requiring the board to furnish a copy of the register or any part thereof to any person demanding it on payment of such fee as may be specified by the scheme."

This Amendment deals with the question of the register. It is desirable that the register should be open for inspection, and that it should be possible for any individuals concerned to obtain a copy of it. The importance of the register cannot be overstated, because only by the register would it be possible to ascertain who are the registered producers, what are their liabilities as such, and who are exempt from being registered. It is, too, to be the register on which the poll is taken, and it is desirable that it should be available not only to those who are supporting a scheme, but to those who have legitimate objections to a scheme. They should have the facilities for obtaining a copy so that they may communicate their views to the producers concerned in order to ensure that the case for or against a scheme is fully considered.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is a very fair way of meeting the point which we considered in Committee, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 14, after the word "that," insert the words:

"except in the case of a substitutional scheme."—[Major Muirhead.]

I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, after the word "or" to insert the words:

"on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, and in either case to an additional fine not exceeding half."

This Amendment, which tries to carry out in a fair way what was the subject of a long discussion in Committee, ought to be read in conjunction with the following Amendment in my name which appears later on the Paper—In page 7, line 29, to leave out the words "whichever is the greater," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Provided that the fines imposed on summary conviction for any offence under this Sub-section shall not exceed in the aggregate one hundred pounds."

The effect of those two Amendments would be this: In case of conviction the maximum fine which could be imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction would be £5 plus half of the cost of the product, provided the total amount did not exceed £100. A heavier penalty could only be imposed by a higher court. These penalties are designed to deal with cases where somebody has tried to torpedo a whole scheme by deliberately selling produce below the price fixed. It is clear that a large producer of milk might sell, say, 10,000 gallons at 1d. per gallon less than the arranged price, and so break down the system over an extensive district, and in a case of that kind a penalty of £5 would be neither here nor there. As the Bill was originally drawn, the offender might have been fined the whole cost of the produce which he had so sold, and that would have been a very heavy penalty, although it is generally agreed that there must be drastic penalties to prevent the spoliation of a scheme in this way. The maximum penalty possible in a court of summary jurisdiction will, as I say, be £100. Other cases will have to be dealt with at the assizes on indictment.

By these Amendments I think I have removed the two main objections which were advanced in Committee to this scheme of penalties. First, I have limited very effectually the penalty which may be imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction, and, secondly, I have defined more precisely the character of the fine itself and the court which is to deal with the case. As to the need for substantial penalties, I do not think that was in question at all in Committee. It is evident that one single large transaction may spoil the whole scheme over a district, and it must be prevented.

So far as I have been able to understand the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I entirely concur with the penalties proposed on summary conviction, but he has not explained to us what happens on indictment. The Amendment states that an offender shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £200, but then we get the words:

"and in either case to an additional fine not exceeding half."

What is the "either case" referred to there, and when it says "not exceeding half," what does it mean—half of what?

The question is perfectly justified. I am afraid that I assumed that my two Amendments were quite clear. A court of summary jurisdiction will be able to impose a fine not exceeding £5, and on indictment an offender will be liable to a fine not exceeding £200, and in either case an addi- tional fine not exceeding half the price for which the product was sold may be imposed, providing that the fine on summary conviction shall not exceed £100.

I would like a little further assurance regarding the cases in which these severe penalties will be imposed. The Minister has referred to persons whose object it was to break a scheme, and has asked for a strong penalty as a deterrent, but the Clause would apply also to a producer who sold produce at other than the arranged price by a mistake. He might be a small producer. I gather that a man who sold half-a-dozen apples at a price below that which the scheme said was a proper price would have infringed the Act and would find himself liable to this gigantic penalty. I suggest that the word "knowingly" or some similar word ought to be introduced to indicate that this penalty is intended to apply to people who wilfully defy the regulations. All the Clause says at present is that penalties may be recovered from

"any registered producer who contravenes any provision of the scheme."

In rural districts there may be many persons who are producers and who are even taking part in the scheme, who may not fully apprehend all its provisions and may very well make a mistake in the selling of produce, especially small amounts of produce. Before we agree to such drastic penalties, we should be a little more explicit in defining the practices against which we are legislating.

The Minister tells us that this punishment is designed to prevent anyone torpedoing a scheme by selling produce at a price below that which was arranged under the scheme. As I read the Bill, however, it would not have that effect at all. By paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of the Clause these penalties are made to apply to sales by a person who is not a registered producer, and therefore these penalties would not affect the registered producer who sold below the agreed price but only a man who was not registered. If I bought an egg from a man who was not a registered producer, whatever the price I paid he would be liable.

I think the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) has overlooked the fact that the penalties named are the limits of the fines to be imposed. It cannot be supposed that every person who was brought before the magistrate would be fined up to the limit. Allowance would be made for a man who had acted by a mistake or by omission. The object of these Amendments is really to say that the penalties shall be limited, and that a court of summary jurisdiction shall not have power to inflict greater penalties than are specified. With reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) I do not think he has quite got the point. A producer is defined in the Bill as meaning the producer of the regulated products.

With very great respect, I do not think the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) has been met. As I apprehend it the point was not "Will the full penalty be imposed in any particular case?" but "Is it right that any penalty at all should be imposed if there was no mens rea in that case?" The House frequently passes legislation creating offences in which no mens rea is necessary at all; the interests of the State are such that in those cases the offence is made absolute, and it matters not that the offender has an innocent mind or that he has acted by inadvertence. It is enough to show that he has contravened the provisions of the law to prove that he has committed an offence. I do not quite apprehend that that is so here. If somebody in a rural area quite inadvertently offended against the provisions of a scheme I am quite certain it would not be the wish of the House that he should be subjected to any penalty, and it is customary in such cases to introduce such words as "wilfully or knowingly" which import the mens rea. What we say in this Clause is that every scheme shall provide for requiring that no sale of the regulated products shall be made by any producer who is not either a registered producer or exempted from registration, and that any producer who sells a regulated product in contravention of the provisions of the scheme shall be liable to these very severe penalties. We ought to be clear about two things. Is it the intent and desire that this offence should be made absolute? If not, ought not some qualifying words to be introduced?

I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) knows better than I do that a court of summary jurisdiction would never dream of inflicting these heavy penalties in the type of case such as he mentions. If he reads paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) he will see that a person is required to be a registered producer or to be exempt from registration. Therefore a producer will know whether he is registered or exempt, and the type of case which he mentioned is very unlikely to occur. A man living far away in the country who sells a sack of potatoes to his neighbour across the hedge would be an exempted person in any sensible scheme, and I am certain that in any small contravention of that nature a bench of magistrates would deal very leniently with the unfortunate person who was proceeded against. I will, however, look into the suggestion which the hon. and learned Member has made. I cannot say more for the present.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of introducing the words "wilfully or knowingly." I think that would meet our case. I understand that the Minister has undertaken that he will consider the putting in of those words, and if he could do that, it would meet a great deal of our criticism.

It must be understood that I have not given any definite promise.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 29, leave out the words "whichever is the greater," and insert instead thereof the words:

"Provided that the fines imposed on summary conviction for any offence under this Sub-section shall not exceed in the aggregate one hundred pounds."—[Dr. Addison.]

I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, at the end, to add the words:

"( ) Where any court imposes a fine for an offence under the last preceding Sub-section the court may, if it thinks fit, having regard to the prejudicial effect which the commission of the offence has had or is likely to have on the operation of the scheme, direct the whole or any part of the fine to be paid to the board."

This Clause makes it a criminal offence to contravene the provisions of the scheme, and the Minister has added pro- visions by which fairly substantial fines may be imposed. The criminal offence which a registered producer may possibly commit under this scheme is not one against the general public, but against his fellow-producers, and I do not think it would give his fellow-producers very much satisfaction to find that fines which had been imposed for a contravention of the scheme had to be paid into an outside fund. It is obvious that the most satisfactory way would be for the boards to proceed against the individuals themselves. I understand that the Minister is sympathetically inclined to the idea that the boards themselves should receive some part at any rate of the fines which are imposed. It is in the hope that the Minister may accept a method by which the boards would receive the portion of fines which is justly due to them that I move this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member upon the Amendment which he has moved in order to give effect to what, I am sure, is a general desire, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6—(Financial Powers And Duties Of Boards)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, after the word "shall," insert the words "except in the case of a substitutional scheme."—[ Major Muirhead.]

Clause 7—(Effect Of Schemes On Contracts)

I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after the word "any," to insert the word "such."

This is the first of a series of Amendments to this Clause which are intended to clarify its meaning. When the other Amendments of the series have been inserted the Clause will read:

"Provided that, where the performance of any such contract made during the relevant period is prohibited by or under any such scheme, the foregoing provision shall cease to apply to that contract upon the expiration of three months after the prohibition first takes effect, unless the contract is registered under this Section.

For the purposes of this Sub-section, the expression the relevant period' in relation to a scheme means the period beginning twelve months before the date when notice of the submission of the scheme was published in the Gazette and ending six months after the date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll, or, in the case of a substitutional scheme, ending six months after the date when the scheme comes into force."

The substitutional scheme is consequential upon other Amendments which have already been agreed to.

I was pleased to hear the Postmaster-General say that the amended Clause which he has read out has tended to clarify this proposal. I think the Clause will be clarified by the addition of the new paragraph which the hon. Gentleman read out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 17, after the word "the," insert the word "relevant."

Leave out from the word "period" to the word "is" in line 23.

In line 23, leave out the word "that" and insert instead thereof the words "any such."—[ Mr. Attlee.]

I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:

"For the purposes of this Sub-section, the expression the relevant period' in relation to a scheme means the period beginning twelve months before the date when notice of the submission of the scheme was published in the Gazette and ending six months after the date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll, or, in the case of a substitutional scheme, ending six months after the date when the scheme comes into force."

May I ask the Lord Advocate whether anything published in the Gazette will be applicable to Scotland according to Scottish law?

If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the interpretation Clause of the Bill, he will find that "Gazette" means:

"(b) in relation to a scheme applicable only in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette:"

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8—(Consumers' Committees And Committee Of Investigation)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).

We have now dealt with the clauses of this Bill which make arrangements for the appointment of Boards and the starting of schemes. These Boards have been given great powers over the agriculturists of the country and it is now proposed to set up a Consumers' Committee to interfere with the work of the Boards and a Committee of Investigation to look after the Consumers' Committee. This Amendment deals with the Consumers' Committees, and, in my opinion, those committees are unnecessary and undesirable. When considering the necessity of setting up these committees we must consider what happens to a scheme before it reaches the stage at which a poll is taken. First the scheme has to be approved by the Minister, and in Clause 1 of the Bill it is laid down that he must consider any objections and representations made to him by people affected. A short time ago the Solicitor-General said:

"The Minister will take all steps to ensure that anyone who is affected will be duly heard before a scheme comes into force."

It is obvious that consumers will be among those affected. Then the scheme has to pass both Houses of Parliament and it is again certain that hon. Members will consider the interests of consumers. It is not until after this that a poll is taken and a Consumers' Council is set up. We have also to consider the effect which other legislation passed by this House may have in regard to these matters. Those who support the formation of these committees do so because they fear that the boards will try to exploit the consumer. May I point out at the present time that the Consumers' Council Bill is being considered by a Committee, and if that Bill passes and the Consumers' Council is set up, it is bound to cause overlapping and interfere with the work of the consumers' committees which it is proposed to set up under this Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Both those committees will be considering the same subject. Those who support the formation of these committees evidently believe that the boards will exploit the consumers, but it will not be in the interest of the boards to do this, and, in fact, it will not be possible. They will not be able to do that, because it is well known that agricultural prices are regulated by world prices. If any attempt were made to exploit the public, I am sure it would fail, and in the end the boards would have to accept the world price of any particular article. I think that the Minister would be wise to accept this Amendment, because the fact that the consumers' committee will be set up will make it very unlikely that anyone will start a scheme at all. We do not know who is going to sit on the committee. The only certain thing we know about the composition of the committee is that one member shall be appointed after consultation with the Co-operative Union. It is most objectionable that a body in such close touch with a political party should be given privileges of that sort. Presumably the members of this committee are going to be paid. We do not know how much, although we do not want any more £7,000 a year appointments. They will have to earn their money in some way, and the only way they can do it is by interfering with the scheme. For these reasons, it would be to the advantage of the Bill to have this committee taken out.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Member has given no effective reasons why this committee should not remain in the Bill. If we assume that these committees have nothing to do except to interfere with other people's work, there might be some reason for it, but, as a matter of practical life, that is not what happens nor what will happen under this Bill. What we do is to set up a board of producers, and give them considerable power over the marketing of their produce and over their fellow-producers. When Parliament sets out to create organisations of that kind, trading in the interests of themselves and their fellow-traders, it behoves us to accompany those extensive powers, which have the force of Statute when they come into operation, with fair and reasonable safeguards for the consumer and other persons. It is almost inconceivable that Parliament would grant such extensive powers without such safeguards.

The only objection which the hon. and gallant Member brought forward was that there is another Bill in Committee upstairs which deals with kindred topics. This particular proposal, however, is of a very special kind, and relates to the operations of the boards carrying out the schemes approved under this Bill. This consumers' committee has, in itself, no powers, but will send in a report to the Minister who, if the case is made out, will send the matter for action and advice to the more important committee which deals with complaints generally and which is dealt with in the next Subsection. This consumers' committee is set up because it is manifest that we must have provisions which will safeguard against any unfairness to the consumer, and which will maintain the support of instructed public opinion. The view of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on this provision is the right and sound view. They are very anxious that it should be in the Bill, because they say it is vital to the interests of the producers that they should maintain the confidence of the general public. You must, therefore, have associated with these proposals some machinery by which the general public as consumers may secure a hearing for any complaint they may have cause to make. It is obvious that a Bill of this kind with great powers should be accompanied by such safeguards, and the hon. Member has not adduced a single reason why this committee should not remain in the Bill.

The Minister has not adduced any very strong reason why this Sub-section should remain in the Bill. He seems to think that the consumers' committee is vital to this scheme. Personally, I have the greatest distrust of the Socialist theory that the whole world can be regulated by a series of committees—one committee to watch this and one to watch that. The next Subsection appoints a committee to watch the consumers' committee. Like the old tag about big fleas and little fleas, a whole series of committees is being instituted by this Bill and other Bills by which the whole course of our lives is to be regulated. But, if these boards are to make a success of their work, they should be given as free a hand as possible. If they abuse the powers given them under this Bill, there is a consumers' committee to which these complaints can be brought, and that is the House of Commons, which is the consumers' committee of the nation.

I would much rather give the new boards a free hand with the knowledge that, if they abused it unreasonably, then the matter would undoubtedly be ventilated in this House by any Member of Parliament solicitous for his constituents interests. This consumers' committee is superabundant, is not required, and is likely to be vexatious to the working of the boards. What appears to be much more likely is that the mere fact that there is to be this committee with powers to look at all the accounts of every board and to examine them in detail will have a deterrent effect upon the formation of the boards. Therefore, if my hon. Friend presses this Amendment to a Division, I shall vote for it. The only good thing about this Sub-section is that its effect is to remove any regulated product from the ambit of the Consumers' Council Bill. That, however, is not much satisfaction to us, because the Consumers' Council Bill will never reach the Statute Book.

The Noble Lord appears to entertain the objection, which was stated in another place on a famous occasion by the great Lord Eldon, who said, when asked to set up an inquiry, that he objected to all inquiries on the ground that, once an inquiry opened, you could not tell what would be inquired into next. The Noble Lord began by a very quiet enunciation of this principle before he glanced at the work of this proposed committee of which he seems to have serious apprehensions in certain respects. The matter is a simple one. This committee is intended to watch the operations of these boards from the point of view of the consumers affected by their work. I cannot imagine any more reasonable arrangement. It is the sort of arrangement we have frequently adopted in modern legislation, and I cannot understand the apprehensions and fears entertained about this committee. I am certain that those outside, who expect to benefit from the working of these boards, would like to have some committee such as this to which they can look for the protection of their interests. It is not suggested that there is any essential conflict between the work of the producers' boards and this committee, and some such review of the work of the pro- ducers' boards should be provided, because it is common knowledge that complaints, which may be entirely unreasonable, are levied from time to time against the operations of statutory bodies. It is entirely in accord with modern legislation that some body should be provided to review those complaints. The proposal is reasonable, and is an essential supplement to the scheme which the House has already accepted. It provides that opportunity of revision and of consideration of complaints which people will expect to find in this Bill when it comes into operation and, therefore, the proposal is one which might reasonably be approved by the House.

I agree with the Amendment, and consider that this provision is a redundant one. I cannot agree with the Minister when he says that the consumers' committee would receive the support of the consumers. Of whom are these committees generally composed? Invariably of cranks. You get a few old maids who put themselves forward, and with a few men cranks you get your committee constituted. The ordinary consumer never thinks for a moment of offering his or her services. You are going to set up a number of committees throughout the country, supported by a number of permanent officials whom they must engage, and who will cost a considerable amount of money, doing no good and not receiving the support of the consumers. The success of a scheme like this must lie in its simplicity, yet here you are placing body after body between the boards and the Minister. What is the necessity for it? Why not simplify this Clause in this way? There should be no one between your co-operative societies and the Minister, but the Minister should delegate to the local authorities powers to receive complaints from the consumers, which could be sent up to him, and he would deal with them in exactly the same way as he would have to deal with them through the consumers' committee. My plan would not only make the right hon. Gentleman's scheme more efficient, but would save a considerable amount of money. The country has no confidence in these committees, and I certainly think that it will be a great mistake, and will imperil the Bill, to include such a Clause as this.

I am sorry for the Minister, because I believe that, if he could bring forward an organised marketing scheme on business lines, he would not need a consumers' investigation committee, but the truth is that this is part of the price that he has to pay to the co-operative movement, who will not have the Bill without it. Really, however, it has nothing to do with the Bill, and, from the point of view of organised marketing, it takes the gilt off the gingerbread. There is no doubt that people will be more suspicious of going into a scheme if they know that any scheme can be turned down by a consumers' committee than for any other reason. The committee who investigate complaints will certainly investigate complaints as to price and quality before anything else, and, when they are doing that, they will hold up as an example the foreign imported article, over which there is no control as regards price, so that it will be hardly worth entering into a scheme at all. As has been shown already by my hon. and gallant Friend, the consumer has ample protection in the election of the board, the publication of the scheme, and the Minister's power of sanctioning the scheme or not as he thinks fit. That seems to be ample protection for the consumer, without putting further top-heavy burdens on the conduct of business which will do more to stop these schemes coming into operation than anything else that the Minister can do.

I only intervene for the purpose of advancing one consideration, which I hope will enable us to conclude this matter. I would appeal to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), in view of his recent distinguished experience, to revise his opposition to the proposal in the Bill. He himself has just been presiding over a committee which I am sure was not composed of old maids or cranks. It was a very business-like committee, which has dealt with consumers' complaints about blended butter and so on, and it has presented a most excellent report, upon which I hope to take action as soon as possible. The hon. Member has rendered a distinguished public service, and the last description that I would apply to the committee over which he presided, and which inquired into this very grievance, is the description which he himself has used. I feel sure that on second thoughts he and his friends will withdraw their opposition.

This House has already passed a Bill very similar in many respects to this Agricultural Marketing Bill, namely, the Coal Mines Bill, which gave greater powers than are given in this Bill, but in that case it was not found necessary to provide any Consumers' Council or committee. Is the agricultural industry more dishonest than the coal industry? If not, I would ask the Minister in all reasonableness to withdraw his objection to this Amendment and allow it to go through. The Bill will receive a great deal more support if these ridiculous committees are not set up throughout the country. There is already ample provision in this respect, and I would beg the Minister not to spoil the Bill for the sake of this particular point.

I must confess that I am quite unconvinced by the arguments of the Minister regarding this Amendment. He does not seem to me to have given any explanation of what these committees are going to do, or what is to be the nature of the complaints from consumers which will be investigated. I cannot see that these committees will be of any use whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman had included in the Bill our original proposal for the control of foreign imports, I could understand that there might be some sort of argument for this provision, because it might then have been said that there would be a monopoly in this country if foreign imports were controlled, and that, therefore, the consumer's point of view ought to be safeguarded. In the present circumstances, however, it seems to me that there is an automatic brake on the alleged rapacity of producers, because, if the board should fix prices too high, the immediate effect would be that they would be undersold by the foreign imports. It seems to me, therefore, that in the present situation the consumer is absolutely protected, that these committees will be quite useless and very expensive, and that to set them up would be a very great mistake.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and' in line 18, stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 388.]	AYES.	[7.21 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Matters, L. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Groves, Thomas E.	Messer, Fred
Addison. Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Grundy, Thomas W.	Middleton, G.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Mills, J. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Milner, Major J.
Ammon, Charles George	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Montague, Frederick
Arnott, John	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Aske, Sir Robert	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morley, Ralph
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Barnes, Alfred John	Harris, Percy A.	Mort, D. L.
Barr, James	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Muggeridge, H. T.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Haycock, A. W.	Murnin, Hugh
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Hayday, Arthur	Naylor, T. E.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Hayes, John Henry	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Benson, G.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Noel Baker, P. J.
Birkett, W. Norman	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Bowen, J. W.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Herriotts, J.	Palin, John Henry.
Bromfield, William	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Palmer, E. T.
Bromley, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Brooke, W.	Hoffman, P. C.	Perry, S. F.
Brothers, M.	Hollins, A.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Horrabin, J. F.	Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Isaacs, George	Pole, Major D. G.
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Potts, John S.
Burgess, F. G.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Price, M. P.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pybus, Percy John
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Cameron, A. G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Cape, Thomas	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Raynes, W. R.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Charleton, H. C.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Cluse, W. S.	Kelly, W. T.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Ritson, J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Kinley, J.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Compton, Joseph	Kirkwood, D.	Romeril, H. G.
Cove, William G.	Knight, Holford	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Cowan, D. M	Lang, Gordon	Rowson, Guy
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Dallas, George	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Sanders, W. S.
Dalton, Hugh	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Sawyer, G. F.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Lawrence, Susan	Scurr, John
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Sexton, Sir James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Leach, W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Duncan, Charles	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Sherwood, G. H.
Ede, James Chuter	Lees, J.	Shield, George William
Edmunds, J. E.	Leonard, W.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Shillaker, J. F.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Shinwell, E.
Egan, W. H.	Logan, David Gilbert	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Longbottom, A. W.	Simmons, C. J.
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)	Longden, F.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Foot, Isaac	Lunn, William	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Freeman, Peter	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McElwee, A.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	McEntee, V. L.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gibbins, Joseph	MacNeill-Weir, L.	Sorensen, R.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	McShane, John James	Stamford, Thomas W.
Gill, T. H.	Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Strauss, G. R.
Gillett, George M.	Manning, E. L.	Sullivan, J.
Glassey, A. E.	Mansfield, W.	Sutton, J. E.
Gossling, A. G.	March, S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Gould, F.	Marcus, M.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Markham, S. F.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Gray, Milner	Marley, J.	Thurtle, Ernest
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Marshall, Fred	Tinker, John Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mathers, George	Toole, Joseph

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 150.

Tout, W. J.	Welsh, James (Paisley)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Vaughan, David	West, F. R.	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Viant, S. P.	Westwood, Joseph	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Walker, J.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Wallace, H. W.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Watkins, F. C.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wellock, Wilfred	Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Everard, W. Lindsay	Muirhead, A. J.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Ferguson, Sir John	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Albery, Irving James	Fermoy, Lord	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Fielden, E. B.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Atholl, Duchess of	Ford, Sir P. J.	Peake, Capt. Osbert
Atkinson, C.	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Penny, Sir George
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Ramsbotham, H.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Blindell, James	Gower, Sir Robert	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Boyce, Leslie	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Bracken, B.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Savery, S. S.
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Scott, James
Butler, R. A.	Haslam, Henry C.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Campbell, E. T.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Smith, R. W. (Aber'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Carver, Major W. H.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chapman, Sir S.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurd, Percy A.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Thompson, Luke
Colville, Major D. J.	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Thomson, Sir F.
Cooper, A. Duff	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Cranborne, Viscount	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Wells, Sydney R.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Lymington, Viscount	Withers, Sir John James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Macquisten, F. A.	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Feversham)	Womersley, W. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
England, Colonel A.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Major the Marquess of Titchfield
		and Captain Euan Wallace.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out from the word "Trade" to the word "to" in line 19.

The words I propose to omit are

"and, as to one member, with the Cooperative Union."

We are here setting up a consumers' committee, which is being chosen by the Minister in consultation with the Board of Trade. There is no mention at all of an outside body with whom the Minister should consult. He is choosing this com- mittee of consumers, and it is put into the Bill that he shall consult the Cooperative Union. There is no question of any antagonism to the Co-operative Union on my part. Hon. Members opposite in Committee apparently imagined that some of us objected to these words because we objected to the Co-operative Union being represented on these committees. We want the Minister to be free to choose the best people that he can get. He is almost bound to choose one or two members of the Co-operative Union. They obviously represent a very large block of consumers. There can be no question of opposing the appointment of any representatives of co-operative societies, but we bitterly resent this inferiority complex which compels certain members of co-operative societies to go whining to the Minister and asking to be put on, because it assumes that the co-operative people have not people of sufficient character and ability to be there on their own merits. We know they have people of sufficient merit, and any Minister, in looking to the interests of the consumers, would be bound to consult with them. We resent putting into an Act of Parliament these few words which compel the Minister to go to them whether he wants to do so or not. If the Minister would give us a concession on this point, he would give many people a feeling that he was trying to make the committee, which none of us particularly want, as wide as possible, composed only of the most suitable people. I am sure these people will be on already, as representing co-operative societies, and it is wrong that you should choose them in this way when there are very many other societies that you could put in, and I do not want any Minister to be tied down in the way that these words ties him.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I was wondering, when the hon. Member got up, what arguments he would bring forward for his proposal. He says representatives of the Co-operative Union will be selected in any case, and yet for some reason he wishes them not to be mentioned. I gather that the co-operative consumers in his own district are hurt at this mention of their organisation.

The Minister is putting words into my mouth. I say that, as a representative of a big constituency, I resent that any society should be named when they would naturally get there on their own merits.

That is one of those explanations which is a distinction without a difference. For some reason, the mere mention of the name is objectionable to the hon. Member, because he thinks that somehow or other it suggests an inferiority complex. Why the mention of an organisation should be indicative of an inferiority complex, whatever that may mean, I cannot understand. I should have thought it would be the opposite. The Board of Trade is mentioned, but it was never put up to me that that was a reflection upon them or suggested that they were suffering from an inferiority complex. These arguments do great credit to the hon. Member's ingenuity. I did not expect it. He has a very thin case. In fact, he has no case at all. This is a consumers' committee, and surely, if there is an organisation which represents a vast number of consumers, it is reasonable that we should look to it to secure some representation on this committee, and that is all that we have done. We have said that, out of the six persons other than the chairman, one shall be appointed, not as a member, not as a right, but merely after consultation with the Co-operative Union. We shall simply require to consult this organisation of consumers. It seems to me a sensible thing to do. We do this kind of thing in setting up all kinds of committees. We mention bodies which are particularly appropriate. Why not mention co-operative consumers? I do not think they wish to blush unseen any more than anyone else, and it is only right and proper that we should mention this which is, after all, a very influential representative body and not a trading body at all. The Co-operative Union is specifically put down, because it is not a trading body, but represents the cooperative organisation. It is quite a proper proposal. I congratulate the hon. Member on his ingenuity, but I am entirely unconvinced by his arguments.

The right hon. Gentleman says, if it is right and proper to consult with the President of the Board of Trade, why not consult with are Co-operative Union as to the appointment of members. It is obvious that the two cases are not analogous. You consult with the Board of Trade because there is a Consumers Bill before Parliament, of which the President of the Board of Trade is the directing head. It is true that the First Lord of the Admiralty is in charge of the Bill, but it is the President of the Board of Trade who is directing operations all through the Bill. Therefore, if you have to get co-ordination between this committee and the Consumers' Council, obviously the Minister of Agriculture must consult the President of the Board of Trade before he appoints the personnel of the committee. There is no analogy between that and the Co-operative Union. I strongly object to this proposal, because it is so unfair. Either leave out the mention of any bodies or put in a great number whom you have to consult, but to pick out a body, which is politically joined to the Labour party, which you should consult and deliberately to leave out all representatives of private interests seems so purely partisan that it ought not to be allowed to pass without some comment.

Of course, the reason, apart from the idea of placating co-operators generally, is that the First Lord of the Admiralty is a very distinguished member of the Co-operative party and was for a long time their secretary. He takes good care, when a Bill like this comes in, to say to his friends in the Cabinet, "Do not forget the Co-operative Society when you mention the people to be consulted." It is wrong, because you are doing something for a political end which ought not to come into a Bill of this kind. These committees ought to be appointed on the responsibility of the Minister, subject, of course, to consultation with his colleagues, specifically or implied. If you begin consulting everyone, you will get yourself into a tangle. It is far better to leave out consultations with anyone at all. I object, therefore, on general principles to this, but I think it is more unwise than usual because you are singling out one form of distribution and enterprise and leaving out all other interests.

I do not follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I do not think he has informed himself with his usual care. As far as I understand it, the Co-operative Union is not affiliated to any political party. I have thousands of co-operators in my division. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I feel sure I am not wrong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument is baseless.

Does the hon. Member say the Co-operative Society does not support the Labour party?

I say it is not affiliated to the Labour party at all, nor, for that matter, is the Co-operative party, as I understand it. Indeed, the opposite is the case, and there are many hundreds of co-operative societies which refuse to be affiliated even to the Co-operative party for political purposes. It is not only a false, but a dangerous ground for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take. I cannot conceive any body of consumers whom it is more fitting to have represented on a board of this kind than co-operators. I rise, however, to get a little information from the Minister. In this Clause we are told that the body to be selected is the Co-operative Union. In Clause 19, which deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland, there is a difference, and I do not understand the difference. Sub-section (3) says:

"For the reference to the Co-operative Union there shall be substituted a reference to a co-operative organisation of consumers."

I do not know what the distinction is. I understand that there is a Scottish cooperative society. I do not understand why, if that body is meant, it should not be mentioned. As to the reason why in the English application it should be the Co-operative Union, which is not a political body, and in Scotland it should be a co-operative organisation of consumers the House would like to have some light.

The right hon. Gentleman said he did not see any reason for this Amendment. I cannot see why these words are put in. It is a most ridiculous complication and is quite unnecessary and would give rise to a sort of idea that there was an intention to give a free advertisement to a body which is, of course, not officially, at any rate, affiliated to the Labour party, but that is not the fault of the Socialist party. In the circumstances, it is thought proper to give a free advertisement to a body of this kind, a large number of whose members, I think, do not want it. From what the Minister said, apparently he regards it as quite certain that the Minister would consult this body whoever the Minister might be, and, at any rate, I gather that he intends to do so himself. But, if it is a case of the Minister wanting advice from this body as to the suitable people, why should he only be allowed to consult them in regard to one nominee? It is true, as the Minister said, that there are Sections in other Acts, but they are Sections to the effect that the Minister shall make appointments after consultation with somebody or other.

Will the Minister tell me why he is only to consult this body in regard to one of six nominees? Does it mean that he intends that the Minister shall appoint one nominee of that body, and, if so, why does he not say so? If he wants the advice of that body, why should the advice be limited to one member of the Committee? The Clause as it reads is absurd. The Minister has a right to consult any body. Apparently, he is so convinced of the importance of this body that it is certain to be consulted by any Minister, and, if it is as valuable as that, why should it not be consulted with regard to all the members of the Committee instead of only with regard to one?

I suggest that the Minister cannot find a single precedent in any Act of Parliament for a Clause of this kind. In the first place, it provides that he has to consult, not with the president or the committee of the body, but with an enormous body. He cannot get the advice of the Co-operative Union. He can get the advice perhaps of the chairman, or the president, or the secretary, or some official of the union, but he cannot get the advice of the union. Is he going to cause the Co-operative Union to hold a meeting in order to decide upon the advice that is to be given to the Minister? I do not think that he can find a single case where, in a body of this size—a body of six members—the Minister is only obliged to consult an outside body in regard to a single member. If the Minister will consider this matter a little further, he will agree that it is much better to leave out these words altogether and to rely upon the Minister doing the proper thing, if so it be, in consulting this body as well as other bodies of equal importance in connection with the appointment, not only of one but of all the members of this body.

I want to be sure that I heard the Minister correctly when he stated that the special reason for consulting with the Co-operative Union was because the Co-operative Union was purely a consumers' co-operative society and had nothing to do with anything else. I understood him to say that just now, and perhaps he can inform us whether it is correct or not?

The hon. Member must have misunderstood me if he thought that I said that. I said that it represented the greatest organisation of consumers in the country, but, of course in some branches there are many other activities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no news in that, surely. I said that as it was a very important, and, I believe, the greatest, representative organisation of purchasers and consumers in the country—by far the largest—it is perfectly reasonable that it should be mentioned. I can supply the hon. and gallant Member with the precedent he requires, because under the Coal Mines Act passed by this House in 1930 it is specified that the National Board shall consist of certain persons, some to be appointed after consultation with the Mining Association, the Miners' Federation, the Federation of British Industries, and then it goes on:

"And each of the following bodies as to one, that is to say—

The General Council of the Trade Union Congress;

The Co-operative Union;

The National Confederation of Employers' Organisations."

That is the whole number.

We are consulting an outside body for one member.

I am afraid that the Minister has rather forgotten what he stated. The reply he gave, certainly in the first speech just before he sat down, was that the principal reason that he had chosen this body was because it was purely a consumers' body. Those were the words that came to me, and I shall look in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow with the greatest interest to see what was said. The last statement is quite different. I have asked this question because of the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He put his finger on the point, because when we come to the Scottish Clause we find that it is not the Co-operative Union in Scotland which is to be consulted, but a co-operative organisation. I do not propose to discuss my Amendment which will come on later if it is called, but I merely want to know if that is what the Minister means?

It is really an important point. It was not cleared up in the discussions in Committee as far as I have been able to gather from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT.

That point does not come up until we get to Clause 19, and there is a specific Amendment on the Paper dealing with it. I understand that in Scotland they are in a more forward position with regard to co-operative organisation in some respects than are we, and therefore a wider form of words has been put in with regard to Scotland in order that they may have a wider application owing to the development in that country of a much better scheme of

Division No. 389.]	AYES.	[7.56 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Cowan, D. M.	Haycock, A. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hayday, Arthur
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Daggar, George	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Dallas, George	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Dalton, Hugh	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Alpass, J. H.	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Ammon, Charles George	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Arnott, John	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Herriotts, J.
Aske, Sir Robert	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ayles, Walter	Duncan, Charles	Hoffman, P. C.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Ede, James Chuter	Hollins, A.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Edmunds, J. E.	Horrabin, J. F.
Barnes, Alfred John	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Barr, James	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Isaacs, George
Batey, Joseph	Egan, W. H.	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Foot, Isaac	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Benson, G.	Freeman, Peter	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Birkett, W. Norman	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bowen, J. W.	Gibbins, Joseph	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Bromfield, William	Gill, T. H.	Kelly, W. T.
Bromley, J.	Gillett, George M.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brooke, W.	Gossling, A. G.	Kinley, J.
Brothers, M.	Gould, F.	Kirkwood, D.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Knight, Holford
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Gray, Milner	Lang, Gordon
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Buchanan, G.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Law, Albert (Bolton)
Burgess, F. G.	Groves, Thomas E.	Law, A. (Rosendale)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Lawrence, Susan
Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Lawson, John James
Cameron, A. G.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Cape, Thomas	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Leach, W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Charleton, H. C.	Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Cluse, W. S.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Lees, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Leonard, W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.	Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Compton, Joseph	Harris, Percy A.	Lloyd, C. Ellis
Cove, William G.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Logan, David Gilbert

the various forms of co-operative organisation than that which we have in this country. I think that the specific point raised by the hon. Member will be reached when we get to the Amendment, and I will ask one of his fellow countrymen to reply.

If a representative of the co-operative societies sits upon a committee, how can he discharge his duties without those duties conflicting with the interests of co-operative societies? When a committee considers the price of flour, the representative of the co-operative society, which is the largest milling institution we possess, cannot help but have conflicting interests and therefore will be a most unsuitable person to sit upon the committee.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 143.

Longbottom, A. W.	Palin, John Henry	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Longden, F.	Paling, Wilfrid	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Lunn, William	Palmer, E. T.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Perry, S. F.	Sorensen, R.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Stamford, Thomas W.
McElwee, A.	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Strauss, G. R.
McEntee, V. L.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Sullivan, J.
MacNeill-Weir, L.	Pole, Major D. G.	Sutton, J. E.
McShane, John James	Potts, John S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Price, M. P.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Manning, E. L.	Pybus, Percy John	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Mansfield, W.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Thurtle, Ernest
March, S.	Raynes, W. R.	Tinker, John Joseph
Marcus, M.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Toole, Joseph
Markham, S. F.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Tout, W. J.
Marley, J.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Vaughan, David
Marshall, Fred	Ritson, J.	Viant, S. P.
Mathers, George	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Walker, J.
Matters, L. W.	Romeril, H. G.	Wallace, H. W.
Messer, Fred	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Watkins, F. C.
Middleton, G.	Rowson, Guy	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mills, J. E.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wellock, Wilfred
Milner, Major J.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Montague, Frederick	Sanders, W. S.	West, F. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sawyer, G. F.	Westwood, Joseph
Morley, Ralph	Sexton, Sir James	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mort, D. L.	Sherwood, G. H.	Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Muggeridge, H. T.	Shield, George William	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Murnin, Hugh	Shiels, Dr. Drummond	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Naylor, T. E.	Shillaker, J. F.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Shinwell, E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Noel Baker, P. J.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Simmons, C. J.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)	Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Albery, Irving James	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Atholl, Duchess of	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Atkinson, C.	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Llewellin, Major J. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	England, Colonel A.	Long, Major Hon. Eric
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Lymington, Viscount
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Beaumont, M. W.	Ferguson, Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Fielden E. B.	Margesson, Captain H. D.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)	Fison, F. G. Clavering	Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Boothby, R. J. G.	Ford, Sir P. J.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Boyce, Leslie	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Bracken, B.	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Muirhead, A. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Gower, Sir Robert	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Butler, R. A.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Peake, Capt. Osbert
Butt, Sir Alfred	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Penny, Sir George
Campbell, E. T.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Carver, Major W. H.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Perkins, W. R. D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Ramsbotham, H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Chapman, Sir S.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Christie, J. A.	Haslam, Henry C.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Rothschild, J. de
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Colville, Major D. J.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cooper, A. Duff	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Savery, S. S.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hurd, Percy A.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Turton, Robert Hugh	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)	Womersley, W. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)	Warrender, Sir Victor	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Thompson, Luke	Wayland, Sir William A.
Thomson, Sir F.	Wells, Sydney R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Todd, Capt. A. J.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)	Captain Sir George Bowyer and
		Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, to leave out paragraph (c)

Under Sub-section (4), the Minister, having appointed a consumers' committee proceeds to appoint a committee of investigation. After the committee of investigation has brought something to the notice of the Minister, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, do certain things, and one of the things that he may do is contained in paragraph (c), namely:

"in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the board forthwith to comply with the order."

The reason why I move to delete the paragraph is that here we have direct power given to the Minister to interfere with the operations of the board. It is one of the Mussolini touches, of which we have had several in the Bill. In connection with an Amendment earlier this afternoon in regard to an inspector of the board being allowed to have access to the land and buildings of a regulated producer, the Minister hotly repudiated the suggestion that there was anything bureacratic, or anything that savoured of business management of the farms from Whitehall. In paragraph (c) the Minister is taking upon himself the very kind of power which he deplored earlier today. He will be able to come to a decision and then compel adhesion to his decision on any matter affecting the scheme. He can enforce his own sweet will upon the board. It is not in the interests of any scheme that the Minister should be entrusted with such wide powers. I do not know whether he happens to be an accomplished horseman, but he seems to be trying to ride two horses at once. He says that the Bill is to raise the price to the producers, and now we are dealing with a Clause which will operate in precisely a different direction. I hope the Minister will be a skill- ful equestrian, otherwise he will come a very serious cropper.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has realised that the purpose of paragraph (c) is to prevent more drastic action. There are three alternatives. In the first place, the Minister may, under paragraph (a), make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary, if the matter can be rectified by amendments. Secondly, under paragraph (d), and this may be regarded by the hon. and gallant Member as the Mussolini touch, he may revoke the scheme. Thirdly, under paragraph (c), he may effect such a change in that part of the administration which it is complained about as will rectify the subject matter of the complaint. Paragraph (c) seeks therefore to prevent the Minister having to use a more drastic power. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the Minister's own sweet will. It is not quite that. The Minister can only take action on the recommendation of the committee of investigation. He need not act on that recommendation. He has to consult the Board of Trade, if he intends to take action. Then he has to give the producers' board 14 days notice. Further, such an order as is contemplated under paragraph (c) has to be laid before each House of Parliament, and there is an opportunity of stopping its proceeding further. Therefore it is not a question of anything being done simply by the Minister's own sweet will.

The hon. and gallant Member said that my hon. Friend is trying to ride two horses at once. We are endeavouring to give the producers a considerable amount of control, but there comes a point where there must be some control for the consumers. It has been suggested that the interests of the producers and the consumers are diametrically opposed. The kind of complaint that may arise may be that of favouring one lot of con- summers as against another, or one lot of producers against another. There may be many matters of complaint without bringing the consumers and the producers against each other. We want some alternative to having to revoke a scheme. The power which is given in paragraph (c) is very closely guarded. Of course, if the Minister's action was objectionable it would be possible for those who were opposed to the scheme to take action and have it revoked. Under this paragraph, it is not a case of acting with a sledge hammer.

We discussed this matter and also the Clause at great length in Committee. We enter our protest against paragraph (c). This is a case where the investigation committee have recommended that the board should do something and the board has definitely refused to do it. The board is simply the trustee for the registered producer. It is in the same position as the board of a company, which is responsible to its shareholders. Here is something which they are asked to do and which they cannot bring themselves to do in loyal fulfilment of their trust, and paragraph (c) empowers the Minister to order them to do it, and then they are obliged to do it. That is acting unfairly towards the board and towards the Minister. It is asking the Minister to do a most invidious thing, to force the board to do something which they cannot reconcile with their duty.

It is possible that the order of the Minister under this paragraph may be one that will prejudice the solvency of the scheme. He may order the board to reduce the price of their regulated product, but in doing so he would have no

Division No. 390]	AYES.	[8.16 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Birkett, W. Norman	Compton, Joseph
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Cove, William G.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Bowen, J. W.	Cowan, D. M.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Broad, Francis Alfred	Cripps, Sir Stafford
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Bromfield, William	Daggar, George
Alpass, J. H.	Bromley, J.	Dallas, George
Ammon, Charles George	Brooke, W.	Dalton, Hugh
Arnott, John	Brothers, M.	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Aske, Sir Robert	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Ayles, Walter	Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Burgess, F. G.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Duncan, Charles
Barnes, Alfred John	Caine, Hall-, Derwent	Ede, James Chuter
Barr, James	Cameron, A. G.	Edmunds, J. E.
Batey, Joseph	Cape, Thomas	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Cluse, W. S.	Egan, W. H.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Benson, G.	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

financial responsibility or liability. The whole of the financial liability would fall on the registered producers. Therefore, it is grossly unfair that the Minister should have this power, without any responsibility for the result that might ensue. It would be very much better, if the board cannot work the scheme satisfactorily and equitably, that the Minister should come to Parliament and ask for the scheme to be wound up. It is impossible to control the actions of the board at every step in the way the Government are trying to do, with the consumers' committee, an investigation committee, and the Minister being armed with powers to put his oar in whenever he thinks fit. It would be much better to give the board a free hand and to wind up the scheme if they cannot deliver the goods. This policy of tinkering interference is one that places both the board and the Minister in an unfair position. It is true that there is a Parliamentary veto on the Minister's action, but it may happen that if the Minister's action is taken during the Recess that Parliament will not have an opportunity of reviewing the matter until the following November. During that time it is quite possible that the action might place the board in a position of insolvency. We cannot regard this proviso as in any way a satisfactory guarantee that the powers conferred upon the Minister may not be used with the greatest prejudice to the fortunes of the board.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 106.

Foot, Isaac,	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Freeman, peter	Lees, J.	Romeril, H. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Leonard, W.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Rowson, Guy
Gibbins, Joseph	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	Logan, David Gilbert	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Gill, T. H.	Longbottom, A. W.	Sanders, W. S.
Gillett, George M.	Longden, F.	Sawyer, G. F.
Glassey, A. E.	Lunn, William	Scurr, John
Gossling, A. G.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Sexton, Sir James
Gould, F.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Gray, Milner	McElwee, A.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).	McEntee, V. L.	Sherwood, G. H.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	McShane, John James	Shield, George William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Groves, Thomas E.	Manning, E. L.	Shillaker, J. F.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mansfield, W.	Shinwell, E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	March, S.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Marcus, M.	Simmons, C. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Markham, S. F.	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, G.)	Marley, J.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Marshall, Fred	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Mathers, George	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Matters, L. W.	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Messer, Fred	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Harris, Percy A.	Middleton, G.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Mills, J. E.	Sorensen, R.
Haycock, A. W.	Milner, Major J.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Hayday, Arthur	Montague, Frederick	Strauss, G. R.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Sullivan, J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Morley, Ralph	Sutton, J. E
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Herriotts, J.	Mort, D. L.	Thurtle, Ernest
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Muggeridge, H. T.	Tinker, John Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)	Murnin, Hugh	Toole, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.	Naylor, T. E.	Tout, W. J.
Hollins, A.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Viant, S. P
Horrabin, J. F.	Noel Baker, p. J.	Walker, J.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Wallace, H. W.
Isaacs, George	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Watkins, F. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Wellock, Wilfred
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Palin, John Henry	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Jones, Morgan (Caarphilly)	Paling, Wilfrid	West, F. R.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Palmer, E. T.	Westwood, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Perry, S. F.	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Kelly, W. T.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Kinley, J.	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Kirkwood, D.	Pole, Major D. G.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Lang, Gordon	Potts, John S.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Price, M. P.	Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Pybus, Percy John	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Raynes, W. R.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Lawrence, Susan	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Leach, W.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Ritson, J.	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Chapman, Sir S.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Atholl, Duchess of	Christie, J. A.	Ganzoni, Sir John
Atkinson, C.	Colville, Major D. J.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cooper, A. Duff	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Courtauld, Major J. S.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Blindell, James	Cranbourne, Viscount	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Boyce, Leslie	Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Haslam, Henry C.
Bracken, B.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Broadbent, Colonel J.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Dixey, A. C.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Campbell, E. T.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Carver, Major W. H.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hurd, Percy A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	England, Colonel A.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Inskip, Sir Thomas

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Penny, Sir George	Thompson, Luke
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Thomson, Sir F.
Kindersley, Major G. M.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Ramsbotham, H	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Turton, Robert Hugh
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Llewellin, Major J. J.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Long, Major Hon. Eric	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wells, Sydney R.
Margesson, Captain H. D.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart	Womersley, W. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Scott, James	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Muirhead, A. J.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)	Captain Austin Hudson.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Clause 12—(Short-Term Loans)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 39, to leave out from the word "scheme" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"Provided that (except in the case of a substitutional scheme) a loan of such amount as the Minister thinks necessary for the purpose of providing for expenses incurred in connection with the initial poll may be made without any such recommendation as aforesaid."

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for the starting of a scheme. It will be observed that the agricultural marketing facilities committee may make a loan to a board administering any scheme. But that does not really meet the point where an initial poll has to be taken. In order that a scheme may work and in order that there may be money for this preliminary, it is necessary to insert these words and so allow a loan of such amount as the Minister thinks necessary for expenses in connection with the poll, without waiting necessarily for the recommendations of the agricultural facilities committee.

I certainly support the Amendment, which was made necessary by the acceptance in Committee of the Amendment which instituted the initial poll. Otherwise the agricultural facilities committee could stop any scheme at the outset, and it is not the desire, of any of us that authority of that sort should be given to the agricultural facilities committee. If the Minister is convinced that there is a case to be put before Parliament for the institution of a marketing board, and if Parliament agrees with him, then clearly the matter must go forward and funds must be available to enable the initial poll to be taken. I am particularly glad that the Minister has adopted this plan, because it will enable the initial poll to be taken without its being necessary at first to pass the hat round amongst promoters of a scheme to defray the expenses. It would have been a very damping commencement to any scheme if the first thing members were asked to do was to put their hands in their pockets in order to repay the expenses of the initial poll.

In some cases the initial poll may be rather costly. In the case of a hops board or black-currant board, it would be comparatively cheap, but when you come to a thing like a potato board, or still more a milk board, where you have to circularise thousands and thousands of producers and to collect a great deal of statistical information in regard to output and produce, the expenses of the initial poll might be very heavy. I imagine that the initial poll in the case of the milk scheme might cost between £15,000 and £20,000. I do not know whether the Minister has formed any estimate, and if I am wrong perhaps he will correct me. But I imagine it would necessarily be a very expensive matter from the point of view of individual producers. Of course we must recognise that if the result of the initial poll is adverse to the scheme the whole of the money is lost. There is a provision later in the Bill by which that amount is automatically written off.

I wish to ask two questions. I understand that the Minister hopes to get this part of the Bill into operation in a comparatively short time. How does he propose to get the money? Will it be obtained by a Supplementary Estimate or is it covered by something already passed? What does the Minister mean by the words "except in the case of a substitutional scheme"? Suppose that a scheme is turned down after a year and a new scheme is started. Are there to be no loans for that new scheme? If not, how will the money be raised? We on this side are interested to find that the Government have so much money to provide loans, after we have been told of the fix that the country is in, and that credit facilities and other schemes have been making inroads on Government credit. What are the limitations, if any, on the Government, in providing large sums of money?

Let me put a concrete case. The schemes will differ in size. The Noble Lord has mentioned hops. How will the Government differentiate between the amount of money allotted to start a hops scheme and the amount allotted to start a potato or wheat scheme? Is there going to be more or less carte blanche given, or is there a limit to the amount to be spent on the poll? Is the limit to be mentioned in the scheme? There will necessarily be a good deal of preliminary advertising and printing. What is the procedure to be adopted? In the case of a scheme for, say, strawberries, it might be known beforehand what the cost will be. In other cases, such as that of poultry, no one will know beforehand how much the expense will be. I have asked questions on the subject and have been told that 4,000 farms are devoted to poultry alone. I foresee considerable difficulty in knowing exactly what are the limitations to be put in any scheme to start a poll of this kind.

The hon. Member is now discussing what has been passed in the Bill, and is not discussing the Amendment.

I have made my point.

My Noble Friend has said that he welcomes this Amendment and that it is necessary, but, as has been indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), we should be told the amount of money that the Minister will find it necessary to spend. Suppose that there were schemes on which it was thought necessary to spend money for the initial poll, and the result was not satisfactory to the starting of the scheme.

This Amendment is only concerned with the expenses incurred in connection with the initial poll.

The Amendment refers to a loan of such amount "as the Minister thinks necessary," for the purposes of the initial poll. I was querying that point and I wanted to know if something more than those words was not required, so that Parliament should be informed when the Minister thinks it necessary to incur this expense. I was giving an example of a case in which, money having been spent on an initial poll, the scheme might not be started, and the money could not then be recovered. I was only raising the question as to whether these words should not be amplified so that Parliament should know when money was being called for in order to carry out an initial poll.

As the hon. and gallant Member says, it is conceivable that there might be a case in which the initial poll would be unsuccessful. In that case no board would be brought into being and therefore there would be no organisation which could reimburse the Minister who had been sanguine enough to undertake the expense of the initial poll. He would have spent the money in a good cause, but there would be nobody from whom to recover it and I have no doubt that Ministers on that account will be very careful before they undertake expenditure on the preliminary stages of a scheme and will make certain of the prospects before there is any expense. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) the reason why a substitutional scheme is excepted, is because this Amendment relates to an initial poll and therefore it could not apply to a scheme which was in substitution of a pre-existing scheme. The pre-existing scheme has already passed through the initial stage and if later on, it is desired to substitute another scheme, it will then be presumed to be able to pay for its own poll.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14—(Constitution And Functions Of Agricultural Marketing Re-Organisation Commissions)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, after the word "and," to insert the words:

"shall, if the Minister so directs, investigate any matter affecting the operation of any other scheme, and may, and shall in a case where the Minister has directed the investigation to be held."

This Amendment is intended to enable the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission to investigate what may be co-operative enterprises, or cases where various schemes are capable of being worked in common, or suchlike cases. As the Clause stands, the Commission may investigate any matter affecting the operation of a scheme prepared or in course of preparation and so on. We propose to enlarge the possibilities of the Commission's investigations by providing that it shall, if the Minister so directs, investigate any matter affecting the operation of any other scheme and make such recommendations as it thinks expedient. That is to say we want the Reorganisation Commission to be able to investigate the parallel working of two schemes and make recommendations accordingly, so that they may be able to gather experience, from the working of the different schemes in relation to questions of alliance and amalgamation. In order to discover the possibilities which exist in this respect, we propose the wider range of inquiry suggested in the Amendment.

May I ask the Minister to explain exactly what he means by "any other scheme"? Does he mean co-operative schemes, or can those words be read to extend to schemes of business companies other than co-operative societies. A large company, for instance, might have been dealing in a particular product. Does the Minister intend that the Commission should have the right to inquire into businesses carried on under those conditions?

No, that is not intended. It is confined to any other scheme.

The reason which the Minister has given for inserting these words, is the reason why I put down an Amendment relating to a point which seemed to have been overlooked. I understand that the Minister's Amendment will cover the point as to the avoidance of overlapping of schemes and in my humble judgment it was one which required covering.

I am not sure that the Amendment is necessary. The Sub-section which we are asked to amend at present reads as follows:

"Any such Commission may, and shall if the Minister so directs, investigate any matter affecting the operation of a scheme prepared or in course of preparation by it."

The Minister tells us that he is now authorising the Commission also to investigate any other scheme. But the Subsection already provides that the Commission may investigate any matter affecting the operation of a scheme and surely the working of another scheme, even though the Commission did not prepare it, is a matter affecting the operation of a parallel scheme. The Minister says that his object is to enable the Commission to review the working of parallel schemes, presumably with a view to amalgamation or something of that sort, but the present wording of the Clause is much wider than the words he proposes.

"Any matter affecting the operation of a scheme."

I cannot imagine wider words. I understand that the investigation committee would have power to say that the working of the co-operative societies, for example, very much affected the working of one of their schemes. They could say, therefore, that they desired to investigate the working of the co-operative societies and they would have all the powers conferred by the rest of the Clause to investigate the working of bodies like the co-operative societies. That is the reason why we take such strong exception to Sub-section (5) of this Clause and it is rather important to make clear exactly what these words mean. If they mean what I, as an ordinary Englishman should have thought they mean, I do not see the necessity for the Amendment at all.

The point made by the Noble Lord will, I think, be cleared up if we look at the wording of the Clause as it stands, with the addition of the words which I propose. The Clause as it stands reads.

"Any such Commission may. … investigate any matter affecting the operation of a scheme prepared or in course of preparation by it."

That is to say, all these wide words to which the Noble Lord referred are limited to the schemes investigated by the Commission. He is well aware that from time to time, and in accordance with the provisions of the Clause, the Minister can set up a Commission ad hoc, for a particular purpose, and when it has discharged its purpose it will cease to be. The addition of these words will enable the Commission to investigate any other scheme which may have been prepared by a Commission which has gone before, and, unless the words are put in, the Commission is limited to investigating any matter affecting a scheme prepared by it.

But the previous scheme might have been a matter affecting that scheme.

Yes, but that previous scheme might have been a scheme which was not prepared by it. It may have been prepared by another Commission which is dead and gone, and we want it to be able to investigate material matters arising out of any scheme, whenever prepared.

I do not think we ought to leave this Amendment without realising how very wide it is. It means that the Minister will, or may, keep in action a commission all the year round to investigate any schemes that happen to come along. It is conceivable that a Scottish commission may investigate an English scheme. I think the words:

"any matter affecting the operation of any other scheme"

are very much too wide, and I suggest that in another place the right hon. Gentleman should define exactly what he means, because, reading the whole of the Clause with this new matter, it is clear that a commission may be set up with very definite limits and can then investigate any matter concerning any other scheme. Those are very wide powers indeed, and I suggest that that is not advisable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 9, leave out the words "that matter," and insert instead thereof the words "the matter investigated."—[ Dr. Addison.]

I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (5).

In moving an Amendment just now, seeking to delete a Clause which gave a large amount of power to the Minister, I had occasion to observe that the power which he sought to acquire for himself savoured of the Mussolini touch, but now I come to another Sub-section, and I really think that this is a veritable Mussolini Putsch. If the House will look at the Clause as a whole, it will find that it sets up an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission, charged with the duties which we have been discussing on the previous Amendment. Sub-section (4) states:

"Every such commission may hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable for the discharge of its functions under this section."

Therefore, we reach the point where the commission is not only given a very wide field of investigation, but it may hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable; and then we come to the next stage, namely, Sub-section (5), which is the subject of my Amendment. This Sub-section seeks to accord to this commission extraordinary powers, powers which are usually in this country very jealously guarded and, indeed, scrupulously withheld except in very special circumstances. The powers which are to be given to this commission are nothing less than the powers of the High Court if in England or the Court of Session if in Scotland, and I think the first question which must be asked is this: Are the subjects of inquiry into which this commission is to be set up to inquire a sufficient justification for giving to the commission such very formidable powers as are set out in this Sub-section? The actual words which give the commission the powers are these:

"The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 (other than the provisions of paragraph (a) of section two thereof), shall apply to the commission as if it were a tribunal established in manner provided by that Act."

The Commission which we are now discussing will therefore have the power of

"(a) The enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise;

(b) The compelling the production of documents;

(c) Subject to rules of court, the issuing of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad,"

and further, if any person on being summoned as a witness makes default in attending or commits other faults which witnesses sometimes commit, then again the Commission will be armed with all the powers of the High Court. That is under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. It is a remarkable point that the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section (2) of the Act from which I am reading is specifically excluded, and I should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell me why. That paragraph reads:

"A tribunal to which this Act is so applied …. shall not refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless in the opinion of the tribunal it is in the public interest expedient so to do for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given."

I am at a loss to know what will happen. In view of the exclusion of this paragraph, will the tribunal be compelled to hold its sittings in camera or compelled not to hold them in camera. It is difficult to follow what is the intention of excluding this paragraph. It may be possible for the Commission, in the course of its investigations into the schemes which it may be preparing or may have prepared, to consider, under the Amendment which we have just passed, other schemes which have not been prepared by the Commission itself. The field of investigation is thus going to be extremely wide. It will be possible for the Commission once it is armed by the Minister—it is true, with the sanction of Parliament—with powers of inquiry to pursue its inquiry into the private business of almost any trade connected directly or indirectly with agriculture. The granting of such powers by the House should be most jealously guarded. This Sub-section, and indeed the whole of this Clause, is another provision by which the Minister has frightened people about this Bill. There is no doubt that a large amount of the hostility which undoubtedly exists in the minds of agriculturists about this Bill is largely due to this kind of provision. If the Bill proves a complete failure, the right hon. Gentleman will have only himself to thank, and he will find that he would have done better to proceed without these compulsory powers and this kind of inquisitorial machinery, but to have relied rather on trying to secure the good will and cooperation of the great industry of agriculture as a whole.

I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

The whole of this Clause is absolutely unnecessary. I cannot see why we have a Minister of Agriculture if we are to have this Reorganisation Commission set up by Act of Parliament with such powers as are provided here. In Scotland it was proposed that the Reorganisation Commission should be the Agricultural Organisation Society. That is a body which was formed for the special purpose of encouraging co-operation in agriculture—

The hon. Member must keep to Sub-section (5).

I was trying to point out that the Clause seeks to do a certain thing, and that the power under Subsection (5), in order to do that, is so great that the whole Clause is—

The hon. Member must accept the Clause up to Sub-section (5).

If we must accept it up to Sub-section (5), there is every reason why Sub-section (5) should be deleted, for the powers that are given in the other parts of the Clause are quite adequate for any Minister to have. It is extraordinary that paragraph (a) of Section (2) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act is not to apply to this Commission, and I should like to know why it is especially left out. It seems as if it is to be another screw on the rack to extract information from people because they will know that the public are to be there. It will mean that the public will be able to inquire into the private affairs of practically any organisation into which the Commission chooses to inquire.

There is a very good reason why Sub-section (5) should be in the Bill. The hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) is rather upside-down in the way he put his point as to the effect of the omission of paragraph (a) of Section (2) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. The inquiry must invariably be an inquiry into private business, and it should be held in private and not in public to carry out what has already been put in Clause 16 in regard to protecting private interests. On the other hand, while we must protect private interests from having all their private affairs disclosed to the general public, we have to see that private interests are not used to wreck the scheme. We have here a provision to enable the Commission to make a scheme, and they must find out information. It is not merely a matter that concerns the agriculturist, for there will be all other kinds of interests adverse to the interests of the producer.

If the hon. and gallant Member made a scheme, say, for milk for the British Isles, he could not do it unless he had adequate information. He might find that when he came to work it out, there were certain people definitely working to wreck the scheme, and to withhold most important information as to the volume that was produced, or the volume travelling this way and that way. He would very soon find he must have powers of this sort if he wanted to make a satisfactory scheme. The hon. and gallant Member has allowed all question of the modifications which we have introduced to slip from his mind. He has omitted to notice one or two particular restrictions on the power given in this Subsection. The Commission has to report to the Minister that it is necessary to the discharge of its functions when inquiring into a definite matter specified in its report. There is no question of a roving inquiry into all the private affairs of people engaged in agriculture. Also, the Commission must have reason to suspect that the information with respect to that matter is being or is likely to be withheld. Those are two important restrictions.

Further, the Minister must come to Parliament, and there are plenty of Members of Parliament who can be trusted to take action if it is felt the Commission is going too far. Only when all those conditions have been satisfied is the Commission to have the power which it seeks. It is most important that those who are entrusted with the task of making a thoroughly sound scheme for the industry should have the power to get all the necessary information. The choice lies between an organised industry and an unorganised industry, and if at every step one is met with the laissez faire view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member, the idea of the Manchester school that one must never interfere with any private enterprise, even though it may be against the interests of a whole industry like that of agriculture, there will be difficulty in formulating a scheme. There must be a certain power of obtaining information on which a scheme can be based.

I am all in favour of putting a marketing board into a position in which they can carry on their work to the greatest advantage and of having schemes drawn up on sound line", but there are limits to the methods we are entitled to employ, even with the very best objects in view. This Subsection is what in Committee we called, and rightly called, the "Star Chamber Clause." The Commission sits in secret and the Postmaster-General, with delightful naiviety, defended its sitting in secret on the ground that he was protecting private interests. What are the private interests which the Postmaster-General desires to protect? Let us visualise a case and see the sort of information which the Commission will require and will naturally desire to have. Let us suppose it is formulating a milk scheme. It would naturally desire to know how much it would cost to erect a factory to deal with the by-products, what the tinning operations would cost, what the condensing operations would cost, and the like.

The Postmaster-General and the Minister of Agriculture propose to arm the Commission with powers which would enable it to go to trade rivals of the Marketing Board to get the information. Under this Sub-section it could require United Dairies, for instance, to show the whole of their books, the whole of their costs and give it all their information. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For this reason, that this information, this experience, this knowledge has been acquired by legitimate trading by that company, who are carrying on their work under the laws of the land and are entitled to the protection of the law. They have what are commonly known as trade secrets, which are perfectly legitimate things to have, which represent accumulated experience, knowledge acquired by experience. People who acquire such knowledge have generally had to pay for it. No doubt this information would be of great value to a milk board which desired to handle its own by-products and would be, in a sense, and perhaps in a very direct sense, competitors with United Dairies. What justification is there for requiring a body of perfectly law-abiding traders to divulge all their secrets to a body which is going to be called into being to compete with them, most likely?

Does the Noble Lord suggest that Parliament would allow that?

It is no good putting the widest words into your Bill and then saying that nobody would be so silly as to make use of them. As on many other occasions, I say now "Thank God we have a House of Lords." As long as the House of Lords is guided by the same influences which guide it at the present moment—

The Noble Lord ought to omit these references to another place.

I think I am entitled to say that as long as another place is guided as it has been guided during the last few years the guarantee in this Sub-section will have some effect, but we know perfectly well that Ministers wish to terminate the powers of another place as soon as they get a chance.

I must ask the Noble Lord to keep to the terms of the Sub-section.

If I have wandered beyond the bounds of order I have been seduced into doing so by the Postmaster-General, but with respect, I would like to submit that the point made by the Postmaster-General was strictly in order. The question of the Parliamentary veto by each House of Parliament is raised in this Sub-section, and I am entitled to say that that guarantee is being assailed by hon. Members opposite, who therefore are not entitled to quote that guarantee in reply to our criticisms. Our position is this, that the Reorganisation Commission is entitled, indeed is bound, to go to all pains to get the best information on which to frame schemes, so that every marketing board may be started under the best possible conditions; but where information is not willingly offered and cannot be obtained by the ordinary methods of obtaining information, the Reorganisation Commission is not entitled to put private traders on the rack in order to extract the information. The sole object of this Subsection is to obtain information which private traders are unwilling to give, and, if they are unwilling to give that information, Parliament has no right to force them, because it is information which they have acquired as a result of experience for which they have had to pay. In these circumstances, it is unjust to force them to divulge such information.

I was very much surprised at the speech made by the Postmaster-General who made it clear that private traders were going to be forced to divulge information to these Commissions. The reason I am surprised at that statement is that upon a previous Amendment I asked the Minister definitely whether these Commissions were to have power to investigate the businesses of firms, companies, and so on, and I was told specifically that their inquiries would be confined to schemes prepared by the Commission or by other commissions set up. Those two statements are contradictory. We are told now by the Postmaster-General that the inquiries under the Commissions are to be allowed to roam over private enterprises and to demand information.

That is quite incorrect. I said they were not allowed to roam, because they must deal with the definite matter specified in the report. That definite matter might deal with the amount of milk sent into a certain area, and matters of that kind, but I specially said that these bodies would not have a roving commission.

The Postmaster-General said that certain people who were opposed to a scheme might withhold information, and those words would lead one to believe that that, statement would apply to individuals. When the Minister of Agriculture replies, I hope he will make the point clear, because at the present moment there is a wide divergence of opinion between the two statements to which I have alluded.

The Postmaster-General has endeavoured to justify this Clause, but in order to realise what is intended we must consider the position of the Commissions. One could understand the hon. Member giving very drastic powers to a committee of investigation which, for example, had to consider defalcations, but these powers are supposed to be given to Commissions set up in England. Scotland, and Wales for the purpose of inspiring schemes and endeavouring to get them supported by those interested in agriculture. The House will realise that the Commissions are going to have these powers before a single scheme is put into operation, and if, when endeavouring to find out whether a scheme is desirable, any of the Commissions come across some information which they would like to have, they proceed to make a report to the Minister. The Postmaster-General suggests that an adequate restriction is contained in the phrase, "That the report would show a definite matter." The report might show many definite matters upon which the Commission might desire information.

The extraordinary thing is that, under certain circumstances, these innocent Commissions are at once transformed into a tribunal with extraordinary powers. The Act intervenes in special circumstances, and power is given to transform one and all of these Commissions into a high court in England, or court of session in Scotland with powers to enforce the attendance of witnesses, power to examine them on oath, and power to compel the production of documents, including all kinds of business books and other matters. If any person, upon being summoned, makes default in attending or refuses to produce any document, that might be construed as contempt of court, and the punishment for contempt of court is imprisonment. Fancy a farmer in my constituency being dragged before a Commission with powers of that sort. It may be a farmer who is interested in a scheme or a tradesman with whom he has been accustomed to trade, or a railway company, or a trading body, that may be required to give information to these Commissions. Any of those persons may be brought before this tribunal which can use all its powers against them. There is no warrant whatever for giving the Commission powers of that kind. Power is given in a preceding Clause to the Commission to hold such inquiries as it thinks necessary or desirable for the discharge of its functions, and that empowers them to hold inquiries.

The Minister desires to give the Commission power to obtain information which they could not otherwise obtain, and that is a distinct infringement of the right of a private trader or, it may be, a railway company who are entitled to carry on their business without the disclosure of the information which the Commission may desire to obtain. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider this point. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes this part of the scheme to have the good will of the community, or even the good will of traders, who might be summoned before this tribunal; if he wants to have their good will, I suggest that he should consider the withdrawal of this Clause. I think this is a sample of the despotism which the House ought to take every opportunity of crushing out of this Bill.

This matter is a matter of very great public importance, and I subscribe to the view put before the House by my hon. Friend. There are two things which we should keep prominently in mind. First, the Postmaster-General was perfectly accurate-when he said that, if you are going to have an effective inquiry, you do not want in the long run to have your inquiry quite void because the requisite information is not forthcoming and, therefore, you must have some power to get the requisite information. That is the first view, but the second view is the one that it is in the highest degree of importance that private citizens should not be subjected to these extraordinarily drastic powers which the Minister seeks to take in this Bill, and that matter might easily become a matter of prime importance. For instance, I understand that the inquiry is to be in private for the very good reason that, when the affairs of private citizens are being investigated, the utmost privacy must be provided. You link that with the tremendously drastic power of giving power to commit for contempt in secret. Although the procedure of the Sub-section is to say, "we do not give you power to commit for contempt there and then," yet the chairman may certify the offence to be an offence normally of contempt of court, and then there is to be a further inquiry by the High Court after which the delinquent will be punished by the powers usually given for contempt of court. When you are doing these things privately and secretly, to arm any Commission with any powers of this kind is surely a great innovation.

My second point is this. Sub-section (5) provides:

"If any such Commission reports to the Minister that it is necessary for the discharge of its functions under this section that it should inquire into a definite matter specified in the report …."

So far from that being the safeguard that the Postmaster-General seems to indicate, it is vague, very menacing, and rather dangerous. It means that you can put in anything you like under the heading "a definite matter specified in the report." Under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, it is declared:

"Where it has been resolved.… by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance …"

It was not until that provision had been satisfied that these very drastic powers were given. Compare that with Subsection (5) of this Bill and its "definite matter specified in the report." It does not say there that it must be urgent or of public importance. The second matter is equally vague and equally menacing, for the Sub-section goes on:

"and that it has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter is being, or is likely to be, withheld."

Could anything be more vague than that? How we are to ascertain as a fact and to prove before a tribunal armed with such power that it is believed that information is likely to be withheld, I do not follow. Therefore, you have these two things, which are in very striking contrast with the language of the Act of Parliament which is sought to be invoked, namely, that the Commission shall for the discharge of its duties under this Section inquire into a definite matter and that information is withheld. When these two things are brought forward, then these powers are given. I suggest to the Minister that that is not in accord with the sense of the House. No one desires to say to the Minister that he shall not have powers to carry out his proposals effectively. If I thought any opposition must have that effect, I would regret it, but, while that matter is important to the Minister, this other matter is important not only to the Minister, but to every citizen in the country. Surely it is not an unreasonable thing to say that we want to give the Minister appropriate powers, but we think that in Sub-section (4) he has appropriate powers, because every Commission can hold such inquiries as it considers desirable for the discharge of its functions under this Section, and that the Minister might stop short of adopting in this Bill powers which are so severe that they are transforming a Commission of this kind, consisting of a chairman and four other members appointed by the Minister, into the High Court of Justice. Therefore, while I wish to make it quite clear that for my own part I desire that the Minister shall have the appropriate power, at the same time I submit that these powers in Sub-section (5) are too drastic and much too wide.

The hon. and learned Member is unduly apprehensive as to the scope and effect of this Clause. Before the powers contained in this Clause can be put into operation, there are three conditions precedent that must be satisfied. The first condition is that there should be a report to the Minister setting forth a definite matter which has to be specified in the report. That condition at once disposes of the suggestion that the House by this Clause is arming the Minister with a roving and undefined power to inquire into any matter the Minister may desire inquiry should be made into. The second condition is that the Minister must lay on the Table of the House the draft of an Order setting forth what that definite matter specified in the report is. Accordingly, you have the safeguard that the House will itself be able to see whether the definite matter specified in the report is a matter in respect of which a power of inquiry such as is contemplated by the Clause should be given. The third precedent condition is that the powers should only be invoked in the case where information is being withheld or is likely to be withheld by parties who are in the position to give that information. I submit that these three conditions are all reasonable safeguards which should go a long way to remove any feeling of un-certainty that there may be in the mind of the House regarding this matter.

The hon. and learned Member said a great deal about the tremendous powers that this Clause confers. Are the powers so very tremendous after all? The House will find the powers in the Act of 1921, Section 1, Sub-section (1), and I would like to read to the House what the powers are. First, there is the power of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise. There is nothing very tremendous about that. It is the proper way to get information. Secondly, there is the power of compelling the production of documents, which is an everyday matter in courts of law. There is nothing very tremendous about that. Thirdly, subject to rules of court, there is the power of issuing a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad. My hon. and learned Friend knows from his experience of the courts that there is nothing very tremendous about that.

It really comes to this, that, in a case where information is withheld, the reorganisation commission is put in the position of a tribunal of inquiry, and is given power to get witnesses to attend and to produce documents which are relevant to a definite matter specified in the report to the Minister and specified by the Minister in his report to this House. That is a very reasonable power with which to arm the reorganisation commissions in dealing with the kind of matters with which they will have to deal. The only point of any substance that has been urged against the Clause is the fear that, if this Clause stands, the commission might have the power to exact from a recalcitrant witness information relating to some secret process—some trade secret which the witness was unwilling to disclose. That fear, however, is, I think, unfounded. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1921 provides that:

"A witness before any such tribunal shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court or the Court of Session."

I think I am on safe ground when I say that the Court of Session in Scotland, and I assume that the same is true of the High Court in England, would not require any witness to divulge in the witness-box a trade secret or a secret process unless under adequate safeguards to ensure the secrecy of the matter which was being divulged. I am quite certain that there would be no compulsion upon the witness, under the provisions of Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1921, to make a public disclosure of some trade secret that might be essential to the character and conduct of his business. I submit that the protection given by the Act is adequate to meet any case that may arise. The hon. and learned Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) said that under this Clause the reorganisation commission would be given a power to commit for contempt of court in secret. That does not impress me in the very least, because, under the Act of 1921, the chairman of the tribunal certifies the offence to the High Court or the Court of Session, That means that, if a witness fails to answer, the chairman cannot deal with the witness at his own hands as for contempt of court, but has to refer the matter to the Judges of the High Court in England or the Court of Session in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am reading from Subsection (2) of Section 1, and the Section goes on to provide:

"and the court may thereupon inquire into the alleged offence and after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the court."

My hon. and learned Friend will observe, firstly, that it is not obligatory to punish. Whether there should be punishment at all would depend, not upon the view of the reorganisation commission, but upon the view of the High Court in England or the Court of Session in Scotland, as the case may be; and, secondly, that the alleged offender will be given every opportunity of stating to the High Court any reason why he should have refused to answer a question or produce a document. I think we can trust the High Courts in Scotland and in England to see that the powers conferred by a Clause of this kind are not abused, and that no witness shall be dealt with as for contempt of court except in a case where he has been properly required to answer a question and has improperly refused to do so. Accordingly, I hope that the Amendment will be negatived.

The House will be even more uneasy after the speech of the Lord Advocate than before. Hon. Members whose constituencies will be affected will note the Lord Advocate's attitude of mind, and it will make the House uneasy. How did he describe these persons? As offenders. What are we doing under this Clause of the Bill? We are setting up a tribunal. The Lord Advocate smiles, but it is not a smiling matter for those who take it seriously—

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I only used the expression "offender" in the case of a person who had declined to answer a question properly put.

What is this tribunal? It is not, like a court of first instance, composed of persons accustomed to judge evidence and make a report to another court; it is a commission set up for an entirely different purpose. It is set up to make schemes under this Bill with regard to agricultural marketing, and in certain cases it may actually compete with the persons who give evidence. Under this Clause it is proposed to give to this commission, which will have no legal training or status, and which, indeed, may have no legal person on it—and I should have thought that this would have outraged the legal mind of the Lord Advocate—the Clause seeks to give to this non-legal body in certain cases the power to cite as offenders before the High Court or the Court of Session persons who are brought up and asked to give evidence on certain points. I do not believe that the House would wish, if it had heard the Debate, to have this particular kind of tribunal as the tribunal under this Bill. The House does not, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, desire to take away from the Minister the power to get his schemes through or to get necessary information, but it does desire to see that no subject of the Realm is haled before a non-legal tribunal.

You have a man brought as a witness, who has committed no offence under the laws of the land, who has committed no crime except that in the opinion of the tribunal or its chairman—a non-legal gentleman—he may have offended against their desire to get certain information, which as a matter of fact he may be legitimately entitled to withhold, because it may be used against him in his business by the very body that may be making its scheme to compete with him. That that non-legal body should have the power to cite him before, in Scotland, the Court of Session, with all the expense that that involves, or in England before the High Court is, I think—I was going to use the word "shocking," and I think it is shocking that those who drafted this Bill should have thought of putting this long chain of legal possibilities into operation in pursuance of a function which as a matter of fact has nothing to do with the law courts.

One remembers the very different circumstances in which the Act of 1921 was introduced and in which it was drafted, and the kind of offences against the whole Realm that were contemplated when these tribunals of inquiry were set up under that Act, and I think that, as I said at the beginning, the Lord Advocate's speech will have increased the uneasiness, at any rate, of Members who sit for rural constituencies which are likely to be affected by this Bill. I do not think that the Minister, on reflection, can do anything but agree, after the speeches that have been made, that this tribunal is not a fit tribunal for the purpose. It is a tribunal which in certain cases may be used to hale citizens of this country before either the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court in England, with all the expense and all the evil results which may follow from such a report by the chairman. I hope the House will cut this out of the Bill.

A great deal of heat has been engendered on this matter. The case will only arise when the Reorganisation Commission find that it is necessary for the discharge of their functions that they should acquire certain information. Their functions are to prepare a scheme and make such recommendations as they may find expedient. In other words, you have this Reorganisation Commission at work and they find that certain information is necessary in order that they may provide a scheme, not for trade competitors, not to be divulged to a competing concern at all, but simply that they have to advise the Minister as to certain ingredients which might or might not advantageously be in the scheme. So all this talk about the divulging of information to trade competitors is entirely beside the mark. The report is made to the Minister. It has to be necessary for the discharge of their functions that they should inquire into a definite matter specified in the report. We will say that a scheme is to be prepared for milk, and it is essential that those making the inquiries should have accurate information as to the amount of milk consumed. In order to obtain that information they must know the amount of milk that is distributed and the amount used by various agencies. Unless they get reliable information they cannot proceed to formulate the scheme at all.

The point we have to consider is this. Is it or is it not desirable that a private person should be in a position to hold up a great public improvement, not by refusing information to a trade competitor, but by refusing to give it in secret to the specially constituted body, which is making the inquiry and which, of course, will not give away trade secrets at all. Clearly, it is desirable that in a case of that kind, if a person is obstructive, there should be compulsory powers. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says it is enough to say, "We wish you to have all the information you require, but we refuse you the power without which you cannot obtain the information." He has a short memory, because in the Coal Mines Act there is a provision that the Reorganisation Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of their duty, and in respect of any meeting of the Commission at which a quorum is present for the purpose of any such inquiry, the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, shall apply to the scheme as if it were a tribunal established in manner provided by that Act. All that is necessary in that case is that there should be a quorum of the Commission present.

In this Bill they have to specify to the Minister that a certain thing is necessary for the discharge of their functions. They have to specify the definite matter. The definite matter must be one which must also contain this ingredient, that information is being withheld. Then the Minister must make an Order and lay it before this House and the other House, and it is open to either House, having seen the Order, having seen the circumstances, having seen the definite matter, having seen that the information is being withheld, to say whether or not this power should be given. Those are five precedent conditions before the power can be exercised at all. Not a single one of them was incorporated in the Coal Mines Act, and the hon. Member for Leith and the hon. and learned Gentleman beside him acclaimed it. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved the Amendment, someone said you could not crack a nut without the steel hammer of this power. My hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who is a humorist, whispered to me, "Yes, but it is the only way that you can get at the kernel."

I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's statement. First of all, this is a great experiment that is being made in connection with an industry which has not been accustomed to such legislation as the coal industry has, unfortunately, had to be. In the second place, the Minister has forgotten the very important words that it is information which is being or is likely to be withheld. I have had some experience with these words in a committee on which I sat during the War, with the present Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to persons who, there was reasonable ground to believe, were likely to be suspected of being a danger to the country. I always thought those words "likely to be" were only appropriate to war time. The House ought to be very careful in giving exceptional powers to tribunals.

If the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the omission of those words, I will accept it.

That is a step in the right direction, but I am not quite sure, without consideration, how far it goes. The speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) was clear and most reasonable, and a helpful speech, as the Minister put it. We are not anxious to deprive the Minister of all legitimate powers, but we are anxious to see, as far as possible, the full liberty of the subject protected in the matter of legislation.

I thank the Minister for his kind reference to the Coal Mines Act, because, after all, as we have seen from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) and from previous speeches, you can sell a pup to the Liberal party, or some members of it, once or twice, but there is a limit to the number of pups you can sell. When anyone so unsuspicious of the Minister as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), and that type of Liberal protest, it really shows that they have been stirred to the depths of their souls. You have to go a very long way before you get to the bottom of their principles. It shows that on this occasion that the Minister really has overshot the mark. It appears that the words "likely to be" are to be offered on the altar of sacrifice, but "definite matter" means almost any definite thing. If a little detail of the Minister's Bill goes wrong, the Minister can say that it is a "definite matter." If a small milkman does this, that or the other, he can say that it is a definite case, and one can extend the whole position from that point of view.

10.0 p.m.

It was said just now, I think by the Lord Advocate, that you can examine witnesses abroad. It has also been said by the Minister that you can go into every matter in connection with the milk trade—all forms of information. Does that mean, in regard to condensed milk, that you can extend your inquiry to a very wide area outside Great Britain? Is it the plan of the Minister that at some future date some other Government may be able to deal with foreign competition in a definite way? I think that some Members of the Liberal party should look at it from that point of view. I can see a very effective weapon in this matter; at the same time I am strongly against this Sub-section. We know that from 1918 to 1922 Parliament suffered from the War mind. Perhaps it is because of one of the Acts of Parliament at that time that the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway is so suspicious. We are giving this committee judicial powers to go into the most minute details of the life of the ordinary citizen, and therefore we are going back to the Act of 1921. I do not know whether at that time the Minister was one of the blue-eyed boys of the Coalition, or whether he had decided to part from them, but many of us regret that there were so many arbitrary Acts passed during that period. The only defence which the Government can give is their tragic failure in the Coal Mines Act. In the interests of the Measure, I ask the Minister to withdraw the whole of his Sub-section, which will arouse every honest man to a condition of absolute opposition to the Bill. Even hon. Members below the Gangway have at last come to realise that you cannot go on treating the private citizen in this arbitrary way.

May I, by leave of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a specific reply to the question which I addressed to him in moving the Amendment, namely, whether this Sub-section will enable the reorganisation commission to choose as to whether or not it shall sit in camera?

The Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act requires that, unless otherwise provided, they will sit in public. I am sure that no rules which any Minister would adopt would invite them to discuss, or expect them to discuss, private affairs in public. No Order would provide for that.

rose—

We are not in Committee.

I asked the leave of the House.

The point to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) desired to call attention is of great importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett) has examined, quite properly and thoroughly, the provisions of the Tribunals of inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, but there is one matter which is of very great importance over and above the matters to which he called attention, and that is the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend. As I well remember, one of the most important conditions of the exercise of the very drastic powers given by the Act of 1921 was that, except in very special circumstances, this tribunal should sit in public. As it was to sit in public, it would be subject to the checks public opinion would impose on the way it would use its powers. Indeed, the Minister actually proposes to take the powers of the Act of 1921, and, so far from allowing public opinion to act as a proper check upon the use of those powers, he says that this extraordinary tribunal, which is to exercise the powers which the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway mentioned, is to sit in private.

We understand the reason, of course. The reason is said to be, no doubt quite honestly, that the information disclosed before the tribunal shall not be published at large. But if that be necessary—and, of course, it is necessary—it none the less ceases to be a reason why this tribunal should not exercise the powers, which in 1921 Parliament was prepared to give to it, upon condition that it sat with the searchlight of publicity upon it, except on the very special and few occasions that in the words of the Act it was in the public interest inexpedient that it should not sit in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I have stated the effect. I will read the words if hon. Members opposite really want the whole Section read. I have stated it accurately that Parlia-

Division No. 391.]	AYES.	[10.8 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Attlee, Clement Richard	Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Ayles, Walter	Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Benson, G.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)	Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Barnes, Alfred John	Bowen, J. W.
Alpass, J. H.	Barr, James	Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Ammon, Charles George	Batey, Joseph	Broad, Francis Alfred
Arnott, John	Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Bromley, J.

ment provided that the tribunal should sit in the full gaze of public notice and notoriety unless it was in the public interest expedient not to do so

"for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given."

But, generally speaking, Parliament intended, except in very special cases, that the public should be admitted. In this case the public is never to be admitted for reasons we perfectly well understand, but it constitutes a very good reason why private persons should not be subject to the very drastic powers conferred by the Act of 1921 in wholly different conditions.

I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite lend themselves to attempts of this kind to make precedents which, undoubtedly, must be precedents increasingly if they are used for making private persons disclose their private affairs. I remember that in the Coalition Parliament, when Parliament was still imbued with the war spirit, attempts were made by all the Government Departments to expose private persons to interrogatories, and to suspicions based upon interrogatories, as to whether they were disaffected towards the Government and whether they were giving information regarding all sorts of questions. The Ministers of the Coalition Government time after time were compelled, with the assistance of the party opposite, to disown any further intention of using the drastic powers which had become familiar during the War, from 1914 to 1918. It is a retrograde movement to go back to provisions of that sort, when they are going to be used in secrecy by a tribunal that has none of the training which the people who were put upon the 1921 tribunals were always intended to possess.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 155.

Brooke, W.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Potts, John S.
Brothers, M.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)	Raynes, W. R.
Buchanan, G.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Richards, R.
Burgess, F. G.	Kelly, W. T.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Cameron, A. G.	Kinley, J.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cape, Thomas	Kirkwood, D.	Ritson, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Knight, Holford	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Chater, Daniel	Lang, Gordon	Romeril, H. G.
Cluse, W. S.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Rowson, Guy
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Compton, Joseph	Law, A. (Rossendale)	Sanders, W. S.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Lawrence, Susan	Sawyer, G. F.
Daggar, George	Lawson, John James	Scurr, John
Dallas, George	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Sexton, Sir James
Dalton, Hugh	Leach, W.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Sherwood, G. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lees, J.	Shield, George William
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Leonard, W.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Duncan, Charles	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Shillaker, J. F.
Ede, James Chuter	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Shinwell, E.
Edmunds, J. E.	Logan, David Gilbert	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Longbottom, A. W.	Simmons, C. J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Longden, F.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Egan, W. H.	Lunn, William	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Freeman, Peter	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassatlaw)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	McElwee, A.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gibbins, Joseph	McEntee, V. L.	Sorensen, R.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	MacLaren, Andrew	Stamford, Thomas W.
Gill, T. H.	McShane, John James	Stephen, Campbell
Gillett, George M.	Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Strauss, G. R.
Glassey, A. E.	Manning, E. L.	Sullivan, J.
Gossling, A. G.	Mansfield, W.	Sutton, J. E.
Gould, F.	March, S.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Marcus, M.	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Markham, S. F.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Gray, Milner	Marley, J.	Thurtle, Ernest
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).	Marshall, Fred	Tillett, Ben
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Mathers, George	Tinker, John Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.	Matters, L. W.	Toole, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.	Messer, Fred	Tout, W. J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Middleton, G.	Vaughan, David
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mills, J. E.	Viant, S. P.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Milner, Major J.	Walker, J.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Montague, Frederick	Wallace, H. W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morgan Dr. H. B.	Watkins, F. C.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Morley, Ralph	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Wellock, Wilfred
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Haycock, A. W.	Mort, D. L.	West, F. R.
Hayday, Arthur	Muggeridge, H. T.	Westwood, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry	Murnin, Hugh	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Naylor, T. E.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Herriotts, J.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Palin, John Henry	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Paling, Wilfrid	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hoffman, P. C.	Palmer, E. T.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Hollins, A.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Horrabin, J. F.	Perry, S. F.	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Isaacs, George	Phillips, Dr. Marlon	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
John, William (Rhondda, West)	Picton-Turbervill, Edith	Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Pole, Major D. G.	Charleton.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Beaumont, M. W.	Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Boyce, Leslie
Aske, Sir Robert	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Bracken, B.
Atholl, Duchess of	Birkett, W. Norman	Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Atkinson, C.	Blindell, James	Broadbent, Colonel J.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Boothby, R. J. G.	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Balniel, Lord	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.	Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Pybus, Percy John
Butler, R. A.	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Ramsbotham, H.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Rathbone, Eleanor
Campbell, E. T.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Carver, Major W. H.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Remer, John R.
Castle Stewart, Earl of	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Haslam, Henry C.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Ross, Ronald D.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Rothschild, J. de
Chapman, Sir S.	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Christie, J. A.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hurd, Percy A.	Salmon, Major I.
Colville, Major D. J.	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cooper, A. Duff	Inskip, Sir Thomas	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Cowan, D. M.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Savery, S. S.
Cranborne, Viscount	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Scott, James
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Llewellin, Major J. J	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Dixey, A. C.	Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Thompson, Luke
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Thomson, Sir F.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Todd, Capt. A. J.
England, Colonel A.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Ferguson, Sir John	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Fielden, E. B.	Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Foot, Isaac	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Ford, Sir P. J.	Muirhead, A. J.	Wells, Sydney R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Frece, Sir Walter de	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Gault, Lieut. Col. A. Hamilton	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Womersley, W. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Penny, Sir George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gower, Sir Robert	Perkins, W. R. D.	Major Sir George Hennessy and
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Captain Margesson.

Clause 17—(Products To Which Act Applies)

Amendment made: Leave out the Clause.—[ Dr. Addison.]

Clause 18—(Interpretation)

I beg to move, in page 20, line 4, to leave out the words "a horticultural product," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals."

This is a consequential Amendment.

The Minister of Agriculture says that this is merely a consequential Amendment, but I would ask him to be good enough to give a definition of the words "or drink." I should like to be quite certain that they are necessary. In the case of another Bill, now passing through the House, the First Lord of the Admiralty has told us that the word "drink" in legislation only means water or drugs and that everything else which most of us call drink is included in the term "food." If the First Lord is right, the Minister of Agriculture is wrong—and vice versa. And on this particular occasion both may be wrong. In the case of the other Bill to which I have referred the words "or drink" were not included when the Bill was read a second time; it was merely a question of food. I say that the words "or drink" in this Amendment are perfectly unnecessary, and it is one of the canons of legislation that we should never put in unnecessary words. Therefore I ask him to take them out. If the First Lord is right the word only means water or drugs, and I cannot imagine any of the authorities set up by this Bill wishing to interest themselves in the sale of water or drugs. If, on the other hand, the word "drink" means what most of us think it means, then there are various other commodities, alcoholic and nonalcoholic, which may be included and I should like some explanation of the kind of drinks which the Minister of Agriculture has in mind should be dealt with by Agricultural Marketing Boards. If it is not too late I should like to move to leave the words "or drink" out of the Amendment.

Was my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment to the proposed Amendment in order?

I did not select it.

This Amendment I have moved after discussion with the other parties in order to come to an agreement on a definition of "agricultural product." Whatever may have taken place upstairs, I am not responsible for it. I dare say it may have happened in the course of the discussion of an Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member.

No.

I have the reference to the statement here, and it appears to have been in the course of a discussion in which the Food and Drugs Act and other Acts were mentioned. I do not propose in this Bill to appropriate the Food and Drugs Act or anything of that sort. This is a definition of "agricultural product." It ought to include milk. Milk is an article of drink. [Interruption.] At any rate you drink it. It is necessary to have these words in a definition of "agricultural product" so as to include milk.

I think the speech of the Minister is one of great importance. I certainly have always thought that milk was a drink, but I and an hon. Friend were precluded on the other Bill which is now going through Standing Committee, and is intended to be at least as wide as this Bill, from putting in the word "drink," although milk was one of the articles that we wished to cover. We were then informed, on the full authority of the Government after consultation with their leading advisers, that it would be quite improper to include the word "drink," because the word "food" already covered it. I only take note now that the further consideration which the Government have given to this important question of definition leads them to find it necessary, when they mean drink, to say drink. I sincerely hope that in future, in other Bills, the Government will be equally specific, and that we shall at least have some consistency in Government legislation.

There has been much talk about the manufacture of power spirit—[Interruption]. The Amendment contains the words:

"Any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals."

Power alcohol can be derived from potatoes, but that would not be included, because it is not an article of food or drink. Surely there is some mistake. Surely the same may be said with regard to starch? The Amendment mentions "fleeces and the skins of animals." There is a well known thing called goose down. Surely goose down would not come into the definition, for it would not be included under "fleeces and the skins of animals."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:

"'Substitutional scheme' means a scheme which revokes one or more existing schemes, and is such that at the time when it comes into force—
(a) every person is entitled to be registered as a producer thereunder who was entitled to be registered as a producer under the existing scheme or one or more of the existing schemes; and
(b) no person is entitled to be registered as a producer thereunder who was not entitled to be registered as a producer under the existing scheme or any of the existing schemes."

This is one of the major Amendments of a series of Amendments dealing with substitutional schemes. In suggesting special machinery for setting up substitutional schemes it was thought desirable that the interests of any persons who might be affected should be adequately safeguarded. This Amendment aims at specifying very closely the conditions under which special machinery for setting up substitutional schemes may be invoked and it lays down that every person who is entitled to be registered as a producer under either of the schemes which are being merged into the substitutional scheme shall be entitled to be registered under the substitutional scheme, and no person who is not entitled to be registered under either of the previous schemes, shall be entitled to be registered under the substitutional scheme. Within those strict limits it is thought that the interests of any person which might possibly be affected by facilitating the procedure for setting up substitutional schemes, is adequately safeguarded.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 17, after the word "kind," to insert the words:

"other than pedigree stock registered in a recognised herd book."

I move this Amendment because I do not think it wise to include pedigree stock under any of these schemes, as it will be the tendency under schemes of this kind to treat such stock as ordinary stock and not as pedigree stock. I need not remind hon. Members that our pedigree herds constitute a valuable asset to this country—perhaps the most valuable asset in our agriculture—and I am sure that the Minister, having just attended the Royal Show, appreciates the importance of our pedigree stock. The market for them is very often abroad and they are in a very different category from the kind of production which is intended to be regulated, as to marketing, under this scheme. I hope that the Minister, even if this Amendment does not meet with his approval, will be able to deal with the point in some other way.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I appreciate the point of the hon. and gallant Member who has moved this Amendment but I am sure he realises that the words which he proposes would not be appropriate. There may be animals registered in recognised herd books of which not all the offspring could be regarded as pedigree stock. These animals may be put into ordinary herds for breeding purposes and if this Amendment were adopted it would exclude the possibility of such cases being dealt with and I do not think that would be desirable. The Amendment in this form would exclude a very large number of animals which would otherwise be dealt with under the scheme and I am afraid I could not accept these words. I shall consider whether I can meet the hon. and gallant Member's point in any other way but I am sure that these words would not be suitable.

When this Bill gets to another place, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to consider whether he cannot find words to meet this point. I think he is right in saying that the words of the Amendment do not entirely meet the point, but I am sure it will commend itself in many quarters if the right hon. Gentleman can make it clear that he does not propose to deal with pedigree stock. You could not possibly find a more unsuitable subject for this Bill.

On the assurance of the Minister that he will look into the matter, I will withdraw my Amendment, with the leave of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 17, to leave out the words "who keeps," and to insert instead thereof the words "whose business it is to keep."

This and the next two Amendments are moved in accordance with undertakings already given.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 21, line 18, after the word "kind," insert the words:

"for the purpose of breeding from it or selling it in an improved condition."

In page 21, line 18, after the word "shall," insert the words:

"(except in so far as the scheme otherwise provides)."—[Dr. Addison.]

Clause 19—(Application To Scotland)

I beg to move, in page 22, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).

I move this Amendment in order to make the Bill apply to Scotland in the same way as to England. Under Clause 8 of the Bill the Co-operative Union in England is to have the right of having one member on the consumers' committee, and I do not see why there should be any difference in Scotland, where, it will be noticed, under this Clause 19, for the words "Co-operative Union," there is to be substituted a reference to a co-operative organisation of consumers. The point was raised in Committee, and we were told there that it was found that there were other bodies besides the Cooperative Union which represented the co-operative movement in Scotland, and the Lord Privy Seal said:

"In Scotland, the Co-operative Union does not cover so extensive a field, and it has been felt by co-operative organisations in Scotland that it might be more appropriate to leave the choice open as to which co-operative organisation in Scotland should select the representative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 7th May, 1931; col. 1026.]

It was said in Committee that the Cooperative Union in England really represented the consumer and had nothing whatever to do with trading, but in Scotland there is a Co-operative Union, but there are other co-operative bodies there, including the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and that is not, admittedly, a society composed purely of consumers, but is a trading society. Therefore, it is most unfair that in Scotland the cooperatives should have the power to put a representative of their trading department on a committee which is supposed to represent solely the interests of the consumer.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In view of the decision of the House on Clause 8, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, to leave out from the word "boards" to the word "shall," in line 34.

The Minister accepted an Amendment in Committee which is now paragraph (b) of Sub-section (5), and it seems to me, therefore, that these words are quite unnecessary and redundant.

I beg to second the Amendment.

In Clause 2 (1), it is provided that a board shall be composed of

"representatives of registered producers elected by them in such manner as may be provided by the scheme,"

with the proviso that during a period of not more than 12 months after the scheme comes into force, the board shall be composed of persons named in the scheme, together with two persons nominated by the Minister. This procedure is clearly inapplicable to the governing body of an agricultural society that becomes a board. It is already in existence, and does not need to be elected by registered producers; nor is there any need in such a case for a provisional board to be ap-appointed for the first 12 months or a shorter period. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:

"( ) No benefit that may accrue to a landholder or a statutory small tenant or other occupier of an agricultural holding from the operation of this Act shall be taken into account by the Land Court in fixing a fair or an equitable rent under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, or by an arbiter in determining for the purposes of Section twelve of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding."

This is a manuscript Amendment embodying an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and part of an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott); and it carries out the undertaking given by the Lord Privy Seal when this matter was discussed in Committee.

A manuscript Amendment at this stage is rather a strong order, but I followed this matter closely in Committee, and it seems to me that the difference between the manuscript Amendment and the Amendment on the Paper is not very wide. It applies the same principle to a further class, and that is in accordance with the undertaking of the Lord Privy Seal on the Committee stage. I do not think that my hon. Friends here will have any objection to offer.

As I raised this point in Committee, I think it right to say that I accept the wording of the manuscript Amendment, the effect of which is exactly the same as the effect of the Amendment on the Paper in my name.

I must protest against manuscript Amendments being handed in at the last minute when we have no opportunity of knowing what they mean. Under the smallholders legislation an equitable rent as between a willing lessor and a willing lessee is to be adjudged by the court. Can the Minister tell me how the arbiter is to take into account as between a willing lessor and a willing lessee what benefits may accrue to a lessee under this Act? It will be an extraordinarily difficult thing for him to do. Another point concerns holdings other than statutory smallholdings. I understand that the arbiter in giving his decision in such cases is not to take into account any benefits that may accrue under this Bill. Is it not the fact that under the English part of the Bill there is no such provision?

I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. B. W. Smith) would not wish to stand between the Government and this Amendment, because it brings the farmers in to the benefit of the Clause.

May I have an answer?

May we have an answer on that point as to a willing lessor and a willing lessee? I should also like to point out that this is an Amendment moved by a Scotsman which does not get money out of England.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule—(Submission, Amendment And Revocation Of Schemes)

Amendments made: in page 26, line 7, leave out the words "a product to which this Act applies," and insert instead thereof the words:

"an agricultural product or of any kind or variety of such a product."

In page 26, line 10, after the word "product," insert the words" kind, or variety."

In line 13, after the word "product," insert the words "kind, or variety."—[ Dr. Addison.]

I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that a substitutional scheme shall be treated for the purpose of the submission thereof to the Minister as if it were an amendment of every scheme revoked thereby, and sub-paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of paragraph one of Part II of this Schedule shall apply accordingly."

At present if it is desired to close down two existing schemes and merge them in a new scheme there is bound to be a certain amount of delay between the time when the old schemes are closed down and the new one comes into full operation. The object of my Amendment is to get rid of that period of delay by treating the setting up of the new scheme as an amendment of the two old schemes. In that way it will be possible to close down the old schemes and bring the new one into operation at one and the same moment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment is consequential on the others and is part of a series of Amendments which was promised. I may say that all the remaining Amendments to Schedule 1 will be accepted except that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Holland Division (Mr. Blindell)—In page 27, line 25, to leave out the words "two-thirds," and to insert instead thereof the words "three-quarters."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 1, leave out from the word "producers" to the end of line 3.

In line 36, leave out from the word "question" to the end of line 37.

In page 28, line 6, after the word "paragraph," insert the words:

"(i) in the case of a scheme other than a substitutional scheme."

In line 7, after the word "or," insert the words:

"(ii) in the case of any scheme."

In line 11, at the end, insert the words:

"4. A scheme may be revoked by a subsequent scheme, and where a scheme is so revoked the subsequent scheme may provide for the transfer to the new board of the whole or any part of the property, rights, and liabilities of the existing board, for the continuation by or against the new board of any legal proceedings pending by or against the existing board and for the dissolution, without winding up, of the existing board.

In this paragraph the expression 'new board' means the board administering the subsequent scheme, and the expression 'existing board' means the board administering the scheme revoked."

In line 16, leave out sub-paragraph ( b).—[ Major Muirhead.]

Second Schedule—(Provisions As To The Incorporation, Registration, And Winding-Up Of Boards)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 35, leave out from the word "up," to the word "but" in line 40, and insert instead thereof the words:

"an amount assessed in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by the scheme."—[Dr. Addison.]

Third Schedule—(Additional Matters For Which Schemes Must Provide

I beg to move, in page 30, line 11, to leave out from the word "board" to the word "and" in line 14.

We had some discussion on these points during the Committee stage, and the Minister at the time said that he might have to alter the wording of my Amendment as proposed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has sent me the alteration which he accepted. The Amendment I have now moved is in the wording which has been accepted by the Minister.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the one which follows it in his name is, I think, a fair compromise in order to arrive at an understanding of what is included in the words of the Bill, and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 17, at the end, insert the words:

"including an annual balance sheet and either an annual profit-and-loss account or, in the case of a board which does not trade for profit, an annual income and expenditure account."—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

In page 30, line 20, leave out paragraph 4.—[ Sir J. Lamb.]

I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:

"6. As to the removal from the register of producers of the names of persons who have ceased to be producers or are exempted from registration."

I would like to thank the Minister for putting in this Amendment. It was a point we pressed on him very hard, and I am sure that his acceptance of it will be a source of comfort to a great many people throughout the country.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 30, line 24, to leave out paragraph 6.

This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule—(Products To Which Act Applies)

Amendment made: Leave out the Schedule.—[ Dr. Addison.]

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

The House has discussed this matter in a very friendly atmosphere, and I am sure the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture for the way he has piloted this Measure both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of this House. We on this side are equally grateful to the Noble Lord opposite, who has led the Opposition very pertinaciously from his point of view, but very courteously and very helpfully. The very friendly atmosphere in which this Bill has been discussed will augur well for the future success of this Measure.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:

"this House cannot assent to the Third Beading of a Bill which, despite great depression in agriculture, imposes upon British home producers solely a dislocation of trading facilities, while leaving unfettered freedom to competing importers."

We have now arrived at one of the final stages of the Agricultural Marketing Bill in this House. The first time it was discussed in the country was in August, 1930, when a Bill was introduced and, after consultation in the country, was withdrawn and a new Bill was substituted in the winter of last year. That Bill, which was this original Bill, although it is now in an entirely different form, received its Second Reading in February. Since then we have had 24 days in Committee considering the Bill. The OFFICIAL REPORT covers more than 1,100 columns. During all that period we treated this Measure entirely as a business measure, putting aside all party considerations and looking at it from a business point of view. Now we have to decide whether the Bill as it is at present will be a help for the agricultural industry and what should be the duty of His Majesty's Opposition towards it at the present moment. During the course of the Committee stage the Minister of Agriculture showed, as is his custom, an extraordinary courtesy to the Opposition. I would go further than that, and pay him the tribute that the best thing in the Bill is the Minister's method of handling it.

When we come to ask ourselves what is the duty of His Majesty's Opposition to the Measure, as we find it to-day, I say quite definitely that the bad things in the Bill far exceed the good things, and that it is our duty to oppose the Bill on Third Reading. We do so because, in the first place, the Bill attempts to do too much. This Bill has come out of the long series of discussions throughout its various stages as an unwieldy monster which attempts to fulfil two distinctly different objects. The first is to introduce schemes which one may term regulating schemes for the agricultural industry; and the second is to initiate trading schemes for the same industry. In my view, and in that of many Members on this side of the House, the Bill fails in both these objects. It fails in the first object—the introduction of regulating schemes—because in trying to deal with these schemes in the same Measure as trading schemes, we have tied them down by regulations and machinery. There are many Members on this side of the House who would have much preferred to see a simple and straightforward Measure introduced by any Government, of whatever party, to benefit agricultural trading by administrative schemes, which would not have required the machinery of this Bill. In the case of the trading schemes, we find that the opposite is the case, and that there is not sufficient legislation, because the main doorway is left open—the doorway of imported foreign produce.

With regard to regulating schemes, I am confident that every Member, in whatever part of the House he may sit, is anxious to see an extension of organisation in the agricultural industry, and, as was rightly pointed out in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), we are all in agreement with the principle of the standardisation of agricultural produce and its packing, and, most important of all in my opinion, the necessity for getting the agricultural industry to advertise its wares and put them before the country in a presentable form. That could be brought about by simple schemes of administration, such as I term regulating schemes; but I very much regret that, owing to the necessity for piling up machinery in this Bill, since it attempts to deal with trading schemes in the same Measure, in my opinion and, I think, that of many other Members, we have overloaded the donkey so that it will not be able to bear the burden and bear fruit for the industry.

11.0 p.m.

With regard to the trading schemes, although, as the Lord Privy Seal has said, we were all in harmony with regard to the objects of the Bill, I am afraid that here we cross swords definitely with the Minister of Agriculture, and, indeed, with the Government, because all of us on this side of the House are convinced that you cannot materially benefit the agricultural industry by schemes which deal with trading unless you consider the question of foreign imports. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite and for hon. Members below the Gangway on this side to shut their eyes to this great question, but that is really a cowardly act, because sooner or later some Government of some party will have to deal with its eyes open with this question of foreign imports. Take ordinary common commodities like beef, pig meat, butter, milk, cheese, poultry, eggs, potatoes and fruit. That is a group of common commodities which we produce, and which we also import. I have only approximate figures, but, if the Minister thinks that those which I give are largely wrong, no doubt he will say so. We produce in this country every year £203,000,000 worth of this group of products, and we import from foreign countries every year approxi- mately £200,000,000 of the same products. Can the House for a moment forget this question of foreign and home produce? Can we refer to them as a and b. If a and b are two sources of supply and you want to encourage the a supply can you do that by entirely ignoring the b supply? You must take it into account. I entirely agree that you must have organisation in the agricultural industry, but organisation alone, without taking into account imports, cannot succeed to any marked extent.

I know the Minister always has a good reply. He knows he cannot deal with foreign imports, much as he would like to. He is tied by the leg by the people who sent him here. He says, "Very well. I cannot deal with foreign imports. Why should not I get on with the organisation part and wait until such time as someone else is there to deal with the other part?" If that is the argument, are we justified in attempting to compel 33 per cent. of the producers of the country to do things they do not want to do when we allow 100 per cent. of the foreigners to import goods into the country? Until we are prepared to face up to this import question I do not believe we are justified in using the power of coercion, compelling the minority to work in with the majority. Compulsion is only legitimate when you have by legislation done some very great good for that industry. If by legislation you have helped a particular industry to a very marked degree, it may be necessary to have further legislation to ensure that the good that you have brought about is not exploited by certain other small sections of the community, and that is the only time when compulsion is justified.

The Minister is thinking of a reasoned argument to use against me. I know he is thinking of milk. He may be thinking of hops, but on that I give him best, because I do not think there is an argument against hops. But hops are only a very small portion of a very great industry. I am well aware that the time is not far distant when the milk industry will have to be organised. If we look to the future, the only method by which we really can make a success of that reorganisation is by factory control of the surplus production. The right hon. Gentleman will agree. He will say, "You only import £5,000,000 worth of milk a year, which is mostly dried milk, when you produce in this country between £50,000,000 and £59,000,000 worth of milk." What have we to do with this industry? Surely, common sense must tell us that we have to build up factories in order to deal with this industry.

When we look at the statistics of the cheese industry we find that we only manufacture £3,000,000 worth of cheese in this country, whereas we import £12,000,000 worth of cheese from abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "From the Empire!"] I am not going to be drawn into the question of whether it comes from the Empire or whether it comes from abroad. Wherever it comes from, I am confident that we are perfectly capable of producing it in this country, and as the public like it. The only reason why the public buy a lot of the imported cheese is because it has become a habit. When once a nation or individuals form a habit they do not like breaking it. We could deal with the imports of cheese, if we produced a popular kind of cheese. We should organise the milk industry for the benefit of the industry and the community as a whole.

I turn to what, after all, is the most important point. In discussing the Bill, and rightly so, as a Measure in itself, have we realised in this discussion to-day, in Committee on the Bill and on Second Reading, the depression which the agricultural industry is suffering from to-day? If so, will the Bill help to relieve the agricultural depression? I suggest that it will not help agriculture in one degree to get over the immediate crisis. Will it help the cereal farmer in East Anglia? Will it help the wheat grower on the Wolds of Yorkshire, which is next door to the part of the world from which I come? Inhabitants ask the Minister of Agriculture to go there and see for himself. I know that the Minister realises the condition of the industry in that part of the counry. It is the same in other parts of the country. Will this Bill do anything to relieve their distress and their present crisis?

The other class of farmers who have been suffering during the last few years are the fruit farmers. Will the fruit farmers in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire and other parts of the country benefit as a result of this Measure? [An HON. MEMBER "Yes!"] I do not believe that they can benefit unless you deal with the importation of pulp from abroad. That is the reason why we on this side of the House are compelled to cast our votes against the Third Reading of the Bill. The Government would have had a great and golden opportunity if they had come forward with proposals to reorganise the marketing system and to combine with it a bold handling of the problem of imports into this country. Not only would they have had the whole of the agricultural industry behind them, but they would have had the co-operation of hon. Members on this side of the House. We are convinced that not only will the Bill be of very little material use to the agricultural industry, but it will not in any shape or form fulfil the pledge of the Labour party before the election that farming must be made to pay. For that reason we shall divide against the Third Reading of the Bill by voting for the Amendment which I have the honour to move.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Every hon. Member who has taken any interest in the Bill, and certainly any hon. Member who served during the prolonged Committee stage will come to the conclusion that the Bill is a very much better Bill than it was originally, but that it is stil an extraorinarily bad Bill. I would not like to make that general statement without advancing some facts in support of it. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill in such eloquent terms, dealt with one of the main objections to the Bill, namely, its complete neglect of dealing with one of the fundamental evils which is rotting and sapping away the heart of agriculture in this country—the fact that there is still a number of people—the number is rapidly growing less—who are prepared to allow any foreigner to use the markets of this country for dumping the surplus of his agricultural production.

Another bad point of the Bill is the introduction of the principle of compulsion. The Bill provides that if a minority objects to the bringing into operation of any scheme, that minority shall be compelled to conform and submit. The Minister committed a grave error in not accepting an Amendment which was moved from our side in Committee to alter the proportion of those necessary to secure a poll from two-thirds to three-fourths. The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret that error. Where there is a minority opposed to the poll the right hon. Gentleman will have to do with not one-fourth of enemies of the scheme but one-third. A second objection, which is even more vital, is that when you come to the amount of the regulated product which is to be produced by the regulated producer in order to achieve a successful poll, you may have one-third of the whole product produced by unwilling producers before the board can handle it. When the board has only two-thirds of the product put at their disposal by willing producers, it will be a serious handicap to the board's business to have one-third in the hands of producers definitely hostile to the scheme. On both grounds the right hon. Gentleman committed a profound error.

There is another fundamental objection to the Bill, and that is the degree of interference. There is interference with the existing trade channels through which the agricultural products of this country have passed for generations. They may not be perfect but the people who have operated them have acquired a high degree of skill as a result of years of experience. This Bill will sweep away all that experience and substitute a board which will have to learn many painful lessons before it acquires the skill to ensure the most efficient marketing of the regulated product entrusted to their charge. This is not the occasion to defend the middleman who has been the subject and target of much abuse, but he has performed a function of inestimable value to the industry in the past, and his passing will be an evil day for agriculture. There is to be interference with contracts, and although the whole of Clause 7 has been devised in order to limit that interference it is still there. There are also what I will call the inquisition Clauses of the Bill. We have had the Minister moving a new Clause this afternoon giving powers of inquisition to a board in charge of a scheme. In another Clause we have a consumers committee set up presumably for the purpose of defeating the real object of the Bill; I can think of no other reason for that committee. There is a committee of investigation to look after the consumers' committee and then there is the agricultural marketing organisation committee to look after everybody except themselves, and quite apart from all this family of fleas, one flea on the back of another, there is the super flea, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. Probably he will not be a very busy flea. I hope and trust that he will see that the more he restricts his activities the better chance the Bill will have to operate.

There is all this interference and inquisition, and I say that the producers of the country are going to be pinched between the pincers of compulsion and the thumbscrews of inquisition—[Interruption]—at every stage. The Minister has the reputation of being a most mild mannered Minister—and most deservedly so. In Debate he wears a velvet glove, but the Debates have lasted so long that the gloves are becoming rather worn, there are some holes an them, and peeping through those holes, what do we see? [Interruption.] We see a mailed fist as well as the pincers, if not the thumb-screw of the real inquisitor. We see also, in many of the Clauses, the true faith of the Socialist party. We see the spirit of compulsion, the spirit of inquisition. We see the denial of liberty to the individual in dealing with what he has himself produced, and what he should have the right to dispose of as he wills. We see individual enterprise cut and curtailed at every point. In fact the Bill provides a glaring example of true Socialism at its worst.

Apart from that the Bill is a hopelessly cumbersome Bill. It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "You have helped to make it so." If that be so I would reply that a Bill so full of compulsion, so full of inquisition, had to be safeguarded. It was the duty of the Opposition to put into the Bill the necessary safeguards. I do not say that we have been wholly successful in providing all the safeguards that are necessary, but I think that we on this side may claim to have put in some at least, which will make the Bill less oppressive.

I would not like to close on a note of purely destructive criticism. I have always tried, on the few occasions when I have had the honour to address this House on a subject connected with agriculture, to close on a note of construction. Therefore my last word shall be on that note. The mistake which is made in the Bill is in having made it an omnibus Bill. The Minister has tried to make one great Bill in which every variety of agricultural product can be dealt with. He has attempted the impossible. What he should have done was to have elected one, or possibly two, agricultural products. Hops has been mentioned, and probably hops would have been an easy thing to start with, owing to the limited area upon which it is grown. I would have liked to have seen the right hon. Gentleman take hops and one other product, and to have put into operation some scheme to deal specifically with those particular products. He should not have proclaimed to the agricultural world that a Bill, full of compulsion and inquisition, was to be printed. He should have said to those engaged in the industry, "The whole of the forces of the State are at your disposal to help you. Come along. We will devise a scheme whereby we will improve the marketing of your product. Come and help us to do it, and we will pass a specific Bill, if necessary, to deal with your specific product." That could have been done a year ago, in a short time. Meantime we could have gained experience of the working of the scheme in regard to the one or two specific products. That would have been the right way to tackle this difficult question. This Bill, I believe, will break down because of its own weight, and because of the very fact that it has been made so commodious in order to cover all these different agricultural products. Like the Mover of the Amendment, I regret that after two years of a Socialist Government, pledged to restore agriculture to prosperity, this Bill should be the best contribution which they can offer. I am amazed that any party which came to office as the Socialist party did, should after this lapse of time show themselves so completely barren of constructive proposals. Because I believe that this Bill will not fulfil the purpose for which it is intended, because I believe that it will contribute nothing to the betterment of the present deplorable condition of the agricultural industry, I second the Amendment.

We have listened to several interesting speeches raising the old question, so often raised in this House, by hon. Members above the Gangway, namely, the question of Protection, the contention being that this Bill will prejudice the home grower, in competition with the importer. I noticed, however, that the Mover of the Amendment made very few remarks about the Bill itself, confining himself to what he thought should have been done outside the Bill, but what could not by any manner of means have been put into the Bill. I desire to put to the House the proposition that organised and coordinated marketing will help the British grower and the British farmer to meet foreign competition. It has been the organisation of the foreigner which has helped him to displace British goods in our own market. British growers at the present time compete not with the foreigner, but mainly with one another. They compete for what the foreigner leaves of the market—because the foreigner is better organised than they are. If the home producer adjusts his production to the home market, he will beat the importer, provided his production and marketing are equally efficient. Organised restriction is better than meeting the cost of growing a whole crop out of the proceeds of 90 per cent., while 10 per cent. rots on the trees or in the ground. Further, the boards which are to be called into existence will control the surplus and use it to prevent the foreigner from finding a market. The boards will be elected by the growers themselves, so that the growers will, in fact, impose their own restrictions.

The mover of the Amendment referred to the subject of milk and when interrupted from the other side, shrugged his shoulders and remarked that he would not care to bring in any suggestion as to milk products imported from our Dominions. As a matter of fact of the 12,000,000 cheeses imported into this country far the greater part comes from the Dominions. I dare say that was "hard cheese" for the hon. and gallant Member. I noticed that he was not supported on the point by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), because that hon. and gallant Gentleman is, as we all know, the originator of the quota scheme, which includes the Dominions and which would be so difficult to carry out. When the right hon. Gentleman first brought in this Bill he wrote a letter to the "Times," in which he said:—

"This is a business Bill, and I must appeal for its consideration in a business manner."

I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to discuss this Bill as a business man. Still, I wonder if the Bill as it now stands is a businesslike Bill. When I spoke on the Second Beading, I drew attention to two things which I thought should be remedied. The first was the too great powers which were given to the Minister. I am glad to see that owing to the discussion in Committee the powers of the Minister have been considerably Whittled down. The Minister himself is a wily old fox. He succeeded in getting on remarkably well with the right hon, Members on the front Opposition Bench, and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) must have thought that his turn might come when he would be in the position of the right hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench, because, although the power of the Minister has been curtailed in the greater part of the Bill, it still remains practically unimpaired in the Schedule; and it is amazing that this paragraph has been allowed to stand unamended whereas in the body of the Bill the Minister's power to revoke, on a report on a question of investigation, is made subject to the express approval of both Houses.

Hon. Members above the Gangway have been at great pains to move Amendments which will make his power to amend subject to the same rule, but in the Schedule we have unchallenged the Ministers' power to revoke or to amend on his own initiative, and the only safeguard is the tacit approval of Parliament, whereas in the other cases it is the express approval. When the right hon. Gentleman or his successor want to juggle, as they will, with any schemes of which they do not approve, they will juggle under the Schedule instead of juggling under the Clauses.

There is one more point which was alluded to by a previous speaker, and which I also expressed on the Second Reading, and that was that the powers of compulsion granted in the Bill were very considerable. As a Liberal and a Free Trader, I dislike these measures of compulsion. I concede that in the present deplorable state of agriculture and the great need of the farmer, some measure of marketing assistance must be brought in and some measure of compulsion must be applied, but if I am prepared to concede some measure of compulsion, I still consider with great misgivings the powers which are given in the Bill to two-thirds of the producers to override the wishes of one-third. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that one unwilling third inside a scheme can do far more harm than one quarter of unwilling people outside a scheme. The greater the powers exercised by the governing body, the greater the need for ensuring the willing support, goodwill, and agreement of the component parts of the body.

I was reading the other day an old book, and I read:

"Peter the Great commenced the system of regulating and interfering with the trade and manufactures in Russia. Another example added to those of Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV., Napoleon and Mehemet Ali, showing that warriors and despots are generally bad economists, and that they instinctively carry their ideas of force and violence into the civil policy of their governments."

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not comparing the right hon. Gentleman with any of those illustrious people and I would not care to insult him so far as to say I do not put him into the category of Mehemet Ali. I noticed that hon. Members above the Gangway cheered that quotation. I am glad, because that sentence was written by one who is not often cheered by them, namely, Mr. Cob-den. I trust that they will give due weight to these principles when they are about to make some drastic revolution in our fiscal system.

The powers of the boards under the Bill are so great that I hope that before the Bill finally comes before the House the Minister will find it possible to make one alteration, because, if the provision remains as it is, a majority of two-thirds will be able to coerce a minority of one-third. The powers are too great if they can be exercised against one-third of the producers. If the Minister opposes Amendments, it will mean that he wishes to coerce the one-third minority, and that he expects them to be coerced. I submit that, unless the schemes are agreed to by the majority of the producers, they cannot be a success, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the methods he should employ are not methods of compulsion, but the methods of persuasion and education. It is only if farmers and agriculturists are persuaded that the methods of the Reorganization Committee will really help them that this Bill can be a success.

The object of this Bill is to reduce the cost of marketing agricultural produce by introducing a system of interference with the producers in the sale of their produce. We know that farmers have great difficulty in making ends meet at the present time, and that it is necessary that they should reduce the cost of marketing to the very utmost and to bring the producer nearer to the consumer. Will this Bill enable that to be done, and as the same time enable production to be carried on in the most progressive manner? This Bill must be judged in accordance with those two standards, and I desire to bring before the House one or two practical points. Take the production of potatoes. In recent years there has been an enormous change in the transport of that commodity to the market.

By the development of motor transport the whole system of selling the crop has been completely altered. Formerly farmers sold their crops of potatoes to wholesale merchants who distributed them to local or city merchants, and they in their turn sold them to the retailers—the shops or co-operative stores. This meant that there were two merchants who had to be paid out of the crop, and it was only on what may be called suburban land, that is, land within, say, three miles of a city, that the producers got any closer to the consumers than I have described. By motor transport all that has been changed. From a radius of 25 to 30 miles potatoes are now driven directly into our towns, either to be dis- tributed by the small city merchants or to be sold direct to the shops or stores. This Bill stops that improved method. These potatoes have now to go through the hands of a pool, which acts as another middleman. Therefore, instead of the producer getting nearer to the consumer he is being put further back. By interfering with the farmer handling his crop at the time when he thinks it best to handle it we are introducing injury to the whole economy and work of the farmer.

I am sorry to trouble the House with a practical illustration, but let me say that in the business of farming the growing and selling of a crop must be considered as a compound operation. Every process has to be linked. This Bill takes from the grower the power to sell his crop at the time at which for practical reasons, he knows that it should be sold. An improved method of potato culture has been evolved lately, namely, that of boxing the seeds. To get the seeds put into boxes in time the farmer has to sell a section of the crop, that is, the eating section of the crop, in order to get the seed out of his pits or clamps, but this Bill takes from him the power he used to have of selling his potatoes when he wanted to do so and he is prevented from carrying out this improved method of conducting his farming operations, which will have the effect of reducing the production and the weight of his crop.

Then, again, different markets take different varieties of potatoes. Even different samples of the same variety are suitable to different markets. The grower knows all that, and, by experience, can fit in the public desire for various kinds of potatoes with his stocks by sending one variety to one market and another to another market. By this Bill all that is destroyed. Potatoes are not like manufactured articles. They have to be sold, if they are to bring the best price to the grower, in the way that the public likes them. It is only by the grower having the power to distribute them in this scientific manner that the best return can come to the industry.

I will give one other practical illustration of how this Bill will have a prejudicial effect in another direction. By this Bill all cattle can only be sold when the officials controlling the pool say that they are to be sold. Suppose that a farmer's stock of turnips in Scotland or of mangolds in England begins to run short, it is an absolutely impossible position for him then if he is forbidden by officials to sell his stock. Again in summer, if his grass burns up, as it does on some soils, the farmer needs to be in a position to sell some of his stock when his pasture begins to burn. This Bill takes that power out of his hands and puts him under the control of a board which may compel him to keep his stock, although it be ruinous to him. When farmers are thus compelled to obey the orders of these pools, there will be some new words brought into existence which will not be taught in the churches or in Sunday schools.

These are practical reasons why this interference with the skill of the farmer is bound to have a prejudicial effect. The expert stockman knows what the right proportions of food are to produce stock of a superior quality, which enables him to get a better demand for it, and by selling out his stock in regular weekly lots to get a better price for it than he would if a pool told him that he must not sell it for another six weeks. Such orders would have disastrous effects on the producers, and, therefore, as a practical measure for the relief of agriculture, this Measure is one of the worst things any Government could bring forward.

In the last forty years there has been an enormous advance in the methods of British agriculture and in knowledge as regards the requirements of both plants and animals. Knowledge of the proper quantities and proportions of nitrogenous, phosphatic and potassic ingredients in fertilisers has enabled our corn production to be enormously increased. It is by an extension of knowledge in that direction that lasting benefits can be given. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of bringing forward this tyrannical and unsuitable Measure, had done something to extend the development of this scientific work, he would have done something to make his name as a progressive and useful Minister of Agriculture. For instance, the veterinary profession lags far behind in telling us anything as to the causes or cure of disease in animals. If he had made a forward move in that direction, he would have done something better than bringing forward this Bill and taking from the skill of the practical farmer the power of determining when he shall sell his produce and his stock. He is bringing forward in this Bill a scheme fraught with the greatest harm and danger to British argiculture.

I support wholeheartedly the Third Beading of this Bill, taking it for what it really is, a Bill to improve the machinery for the marketing of British agricultural produce. It can be summarised as a Bill to standardise British agricultural production and to rationalise its distribution. Undoubtedly, in this country to-day we have a very great market indeed for agricultural produce, and the reason why the home producer does not have a considerable share of the home market is that in may instances the home production is not properly graded and no standardisation has been arrived at. When we tackle this question of standardising our agricultural products, the great body of British consumers will give a preference to our own farmers. At present, the products that come in from abroad and from the Dominions can be relied upon, whereas, if the consumer buys the best British butter or bacon, he gets a different quality every time. Only by getting our products regulated and standardised can we ensure a larger share of our home market.

The Members above the Gangway have all along tried to drag in the question of foreign countries. It was clearly explained on Second Reading that that was not the object in view. The main agricultural organisation in Scotland has supported this Measure, because, while they believe that a certain control of foreign imports is desirable, they recognise at the same time that no great case can be made out for any control of foodstuffs coming into this country until such time as the producers of food in this country have put their own house in order and are placing their produce on the market in such a condition that the consumers will purchase it.

I should like to associate myself with what the Lord Privy Seal said at the commencement of this Third Reading debate with regard to the conduct of the Minister in piloting the Bill through this House and through the Standing Committee. He has shown on all occasions, not only a great mastery of the terms of this complicated Measure, but a disposition to meet every legitimate criticism in a fair and generous manner. I should like, too, to associate myself with the Lord Privy Seal's remarks regarding the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), who also showed a most masterly grip of this Measure, and was much more sympathetic than many Members of his party towards the objects which the Measure is intended to achieve. I believe that when it is placed on the Statute Book it will give to farmers the opportunity, and it is up to them to seize it, of regulating and organising markets, of stabilising prices, and of ensuring by an up-to-date and comprehensive system a greater measure of prosperity for British agriculture than it has known for many years.

I rise as one who, as I have said before, is directly connected with the soil, to welcome the Third Reading of this Bill. I think a wrong impression has been created with regard to the Bill, especially by the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), who spoke of compulsion. There is no compulsion in this Bill whatever. It is a voluntary Measure. It rests with producers themselves to form a board, so that there cannot be said to be compulsion. There is disorganisation at the present time with regard to certain products. Early potato growers are tumbling over one another now in the market, whereas if they were regulated there would be a fair price for them. We want the organisation and regulation which this Bill provides. It would be worth passing if only for the milk industry alone, and it is worth passing for the sake of potatoes and fruit. In the organisation of the fruit industry and progress with canning there are great prospects. With regard to the accusation that the Government have done nothing, I would ask, what about the Land Drainage Act? The present Minister of Agriculture, when that Measure was hung up in another place, brought it down and passed through this House, and it is now in operation.

I am afraid that we cannot discuss it now.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but an accusation was made that the Government had done nothing. Something has been said with regard to a "bug" being found in butter, but I am glad to say that the county from which I come has become the champion county for the production of butter with no "bugs" in it. The boards which will be formed under this Bill will have power to organise surplus stocks. I venture to say that, if you went into a grocer's shop and asked for a pound of home-made black currant jam, you could not get it, although we heard last year of black currants being allowed to rot; and the supplies of tinned strawberries were all sold out before Christmas. A Bill for the regulation and co-ordination of agricultural produce affords great possibilities, and eventually we on this side will go forward with a larger programme of import boards.

12 m.

I should like to explain why I am unable to support the Third Reading. I wish to thank the Lord Privy Seal for the generous words which he has used about myself and to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the way he has handled the Bill. He has not moved the closure once in Committee or on Report, and I commend his example to his colleagues. It is up to us to thank him for the considerate way in which he has treated us and the genuine efforts he has made on a large number of points to meet the criticisms that we have brought against the Bill. We have in Committee and on Report endeavoured to improve the Bill and, with the good will of the Minister, I think we have largely succeeded. It is undoubtedly improved in many respects from what it was when it was introduced, and it is now fair to say that it need not be used by the farmers unless the great majority of them want to use it. But that fact is in itself going to result in the Bill not being used at all until the question of foreign imports is dealt with and, when the Minister asks us to assent to the Third Reading and to share with him the responsibility of passing it in its final stage, we cannot give that co-operation, because we feel that the solution of the problem which he has presented to the farmers is, in the form in which he has presented it, no solution at all. It is only half a solution. It is the box without the lid—the bath without the waste plug. It will not hold water. Unless you are prepared to deal with the question of foreign imports, it is impossible to hope to gain stabilisation of agricultural prices. It is impossible to hope to gain fair play for our farmers.

If the Minister had been able to deal with the whole problem, to deal with price stabilisation in its entirety, to deal with foreign imports as well as home produce, I for one would have met him in cordial co-operation. I believe in organised marketing. I believe in standardisation and organisation, and I believe British agriculture has great benefits to gain from it, provided that the question of foreign produce is dealt with at the same time. The whole point of the Bill is to deal with the 33 per cent. of dissenting farmers. I am prepared to accord to the 66 per cent. the power, under proper safeguards for the individual of fair play and justice, to coerce the 33 per cent., but only if the Minister will confer upon them the power of dealing with the 100 per cent. of foreign farmers. Because he tries to coerce the 33 per cent. of English farmers and will not move a little finger to touch the 100 per cent. of foreign farmers, we cannot accompany him in the last stage of this Agricultural Marketing Bill.

I am sure that, speaking on behalf of many of my colleagues, we appreciated very much indeed the friendly sentiments of the Noble Lord and of his friends. I would like to join with him in bearing testimony to the way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee. With a few trivial exceptions, I think that I can fairly say that it was dealt with on its merits as a business proposition; in fact, it won its way through Committee. I am sure the Noble Lord and his friends will join with me and my hon. and right hon. Friends in saying that our friendly proceedings there were in no small measure due to the skilful guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). The case for the Amendment is that we are not to do this, because we ought to do something else. That is a very old reason. I am familiar with that objection. I think it goes back to the beginning of the history books. It is always an objection to doing something that you are not doing something else. I have long since ceased to regard that as an objection in itself. As a matter of fact, if the Noble Lord and his friends had the job to do, they would find that, if they had to deal with foreign imports, they would become convinced of the necessary corollary of home marketing organisation on this side. They would find that that would be their first task. Another reason why they would find that the home marketing organisation was an essential concomitant of an imports organisation is to be found in the Treaties with which they themselves helped to saddle this country, and in connection with an important provision of which we should require to deal with home products in the same way as we dealt with foreign imports of a like nature, to quote the words of the Treaty. Therefore the noble Lord would not have escaped from this task even if he had started in the other way. He would still have found himself compelled to create a home marketing organisation.

I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that the method of approach which the Government have adopted, and which I helped to defend in Committee for a long time, is the right one. To come a little closer to it for a few minutes, I see that the hon. and gallant Member who proposed the Amendment was very careful not to say much that was damaging to the Bill. I appreciate that fact, because I know the reason. He reluctantly became a convert to the Bill in Committee upstairs; at all events, I think that I can say quite faithfully that he thinks there is a good deal in it. I appreciate the fact that there was very little in his speech that was damaging to the Bill. It was all about that other thing which is on the horizon somewhere, and which has been dangled before this country for the last 50 years to my knowledge.

The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had a double-barrelled complaint. He protested too much. On the one hand he said that we had tried to do too much, that we had tackled too many problems, and on the other hand he said that we had no constructive suggestions to make. Whichever ground he chooses he will select for himself, but they are not naturally self-supporting. One thing was clear, or I hope it was clear, in his criticism, and it was that we had failed to deal with foreign imports and that there were fleas all over the place. I was not clear whether he would deal with the fleas by pincers or by thumb-screws. What that had to do with the Marketing Bill I have not the slightest idea. We have to organise our home market. Take the case of milk. The urgent necessity which is looming before the agricultural community this autumn does not depend upon our dealing with foreign imports. The big issue, which affects a trade worth forty, fifty or sixty million pounds to the farmers, comes within the next three or four months. It depends upon their ability to conclude a proper bargain in regard to milk prices and their ability to secure a proper arrangement for dealing with their surplus, the existence of which surplus continually decimates their market. They can only deal with the surplus by organisation. Every man acquainted with the state of the milk industry knows that that issue is almost immediately before them. How are they going to deal with that issue by dealing with imported dried milk? It does not touch the question. We produce eight hundred million gallons of milk, of which six hundred million gallons are sold as liquid milk, and the market for that liquid milk is determined by our ability to handle the margin which is called surplus milk. That decides the prosperity or the adversity of the farmers of this country. Are we to delay dealing with that matter until we deal with the question of the importation of dried milk from Switzerland? We cannot afford to wait, with this great issue before the farming community. We propose to give them power to deal with this matter straight away.

Take potatoes. There is a crop worth £20,000,000, as a rule. The result of a very small surplus on that crop is serious. The surplus in the year 1929 was a small one of about 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., but the result was that the value of the total crop in 1929–1930 was £11,500,000, whereas the value of a crop of a smaller tonnage five or six years previously was £28,000,000. The existence of a trivial 10 per cent. surplus in that potato crop, which was greater than in the year before, sent down the value of the crop to the producer some £7,000,000. It was that small surplus that was responsible. The loss in the value owing to a small surplus in two other years was greater than the total value of wheat produced in this country. When we have a big fact like that before us, it is no use saying that we must not deal with such a question until we have dealt with new potatoes that come into the country in the spring. There is no relation between the two problems. I recognise the problem of imports, it is continually before us. Take the question of Danish bacon. We import £44,000,000, and we produce but a tenth of that amount. Why? It is not because of tariffs; it is organisation. Why should we wait and do nothing in the face of a market flooded by imports, highly standardised and sold by a highly skilled trade organisation, which even advertises in our town tubes? And how are these advertisements paid for? They are paid because you have an organisation representing the whole industry. A small levy on the organisation pays for them. If we had a small levy of ¼d. per gallon on milk it would produce £250,000; and think what could be done to improve the organisation, transport and the standard quality of the article by such a sum of money. We have not looked at our opportunities.

I come to the question of fruit, where we have foreign competition, and where it is very necessary that we should do our best to make use of our own splendid opportunities. Think what the fruit grower could have done with this organisation. He could have made large scale contracts with the canning industry. We have no large fruit organisation which can make such contracts with the canning industry, which at the moment is going ahead by leaps and bounds in this country. If we could produce a high grade standard product the British housewife is always glad to pay for home supplies at a fair price. It depends on her being able to get a standardised article of the right quality and at the right time. If we could have large scale contracts with the canning industry it would give a security to our fruit growers which at present they have not got. If this Bill is passed, and if they have any sense, they will get a board which will be able to make these arrangements. This also applies to packing, transport and the collection of goods. My right hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Empire Marketing Board which is proposing to set on foot a special campaign to assist the sale and develop the production of British homegrown canned fruit.

There is an immense market waiting for our products, but what is the difficulty which has been experienced? The difficulty is in making use of the opportunity before us. There are great organisations, some of which I could name which would be perfectly willing to place orders for home-produced goods of a standardised type if those goods could be delivered in the quantities required and at the time required. Our difficulty is in meeting those requirements and that is what prevented my right hon. Friend's Committee from making the fullest use of the opportunities which are before us. I know the difficulties, but I know that we have in this country the finest food market in the world and I know that we produce some of the best stuff in the world and that we have some of the best producers in the world. It would be sheer folly if we did not take every opportunity and do everything we could to help those splendid producers to organise themselves in a better way to make a better use of our magnificent home market. It is with that design in front of us that I recommend the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Before we part with this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."]—the House ought to know the real desires of farmers with regard to the marketing of agricultural products. The hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Major Dudgeon) made a statement about agricultural opinion in Scotland and said that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland had always supported this Measure. [Interruption.] I want to make this clear on the Third Reading of the Bill—and I put it particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway and to the Lord Privy Seal, that the Bill does not carry out the wishes of the National Farmers' Union, or of any organised section of Scottish agricultural opinion with regard to marketing.

What about the Farmers' Union in the hon. Member's own constituency?

I make that statement and I defy any hon. Member opposite to contradict it. I propose to prove my case from the National Farmers' Union's own statements. It is true that they have supported agricultural marketing, but what they want is control of imports. [Interruption.] The House ought to know what are the facts with regard to the opinion of the National Farmers' Union and other bodies, and I propose to read a letter written to me on 9th January of this year. This is what the letter said:

"At a meeting of the Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine area executive of the Farmers' Union, I was instructed to write and request you to grant the privilege of an interview to a small deputation from the Union to discuss with you the question of control of imports which it is hoped might be added to the Government's Marketing Bill or passed separately and simultaneously."

That was from the Union branch in my own constituency. I have also here an official document of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. It is dated 12th March of this year. I will read the whole letter if the Minister wants me to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The letter states:

"I have to re-affirm that this Union have approved of the principle of organised marketing and support the Bill now in Committee subject to the amendment of certain Clauses therein."

The final paragraph of the letter is:

"A Memorandum embodying our suggested amendments was sent to you on 9th February last."

When I turned to the Amendments which were sent to me on 9th February I find that the first was to delete from the word "and," in line 17 of Clause 1—

I do not know whether these Amendments have been discussed in the past or not, but it is certainly not in order to discuss them now.

I am pointing out that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, by their amendments, showed that they were only in favour of this Bill if it contained control of foreign imports. While Members of this House, including the Lord Privy Seal, claim that the whole agricultural opinion of Scotland was in favour of the Bill, I am pointing out that what the Union were in favour of, was this Bill plus control of imports.

And when the hon. Member has said that, I suppose he has covered the whole of the Amendments which he was about to read to the House.

I was going to read the statement of the Farmers' Union as follows:

"If this provision were allowed to remain in the Bill it would be open for producers situated outwith the area covered by the Scheme to send into the area and sell to the detriment of the Scheme, any regulated product. …. A producer just outside the area, or a producer outwith Great Britain, would be under no such restrictions, and could at certain times undermine the market within the area for the sale of the regulated products."

On the 29th June the same body wrote:

"I trust you will make every endeavour to assist us in pressing for the deletion from Clause 18 (1) (c) of the Bill, of the words referred to."

They gave an Amendment and a copy of letter addressed to the Minister which states:

"I am instructed to strenuously oppose the inclusion in Clause 18 (1) (c) relating to the definition of 'regulated product' of the words—

'but does not (except in the expression "consumers of the regulated product") include any product, kind or variety, in so far as it is produced outside the area to which the scheme is applicable.'"

That is the National Farmers' Union's point of view in regard to the Bill. Now I come to another body. The Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland wrote to me, and I said on Second Reading that they were opposed to the Bill unless it contained the control of imports. A member of the Government said I was wrong, so I asked the Chamber of Agriculture again, and they informed me that the memorandum of the Chamber, dated November, 1930, expressed generally the views of the Chamber on the Bill, and that if there was to be no control of imports it might be taken that the Chamber did not approve of the Bill. [Interruption.] The Government have a very fine opinion of the Scottish agricultural organisations. In the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland of last year it is stated:

"It is necessary for the health of the agricultural industry to prevent the fluctuations of prices by uncontrolled imports. Any organisations of home producers established to stabilise prices and to promote orderly marketing will be crippled in its efforts unless protected from the operations of speculators."

It follows, therefore, from what I have said that a good many of the organisations in Scotland are opposed to this Bill unless it contains provisions for the control of imports. I want to go further than that and to show why it is absolutely necessary to have control of imports. [Interruption.] Why do you require compulsion in the Bill? The money you are paying out is not being used to the proper advantage. You could use this money better in order to prove that co-operation is a good thing than by spreading it about in the way that you propose. If these schemes fail, you are doing something which must harm your own Bill. The cooperative movement has hardly ever been a success in Scotland. I think, if the schemes fail, you are going to drive people away from co-operation, and you are going to do more harm. We are not spending money in the best way, and I do appeal to the Minister not to pass the Bill. We are doing something that will be detrimental to co-operation and something which is not asked for by agriculture in Scotland unless at the same time you control imports.

As one who has sat out during the long days in the Committee upstairs, I want to make only a few observations. The first thing I have to say is that this Bill, according to the Minister of Agriculture who has just spoken, ought really to be a Milk Bill and nothing else. The only thing that the Bill will do will be to give some power to deal with milk and possibly with hops. It is an overweighted Bill, and it is perfectly certain that no body of sane farmers will ever co-operate and try to work under its provisions. After all if you have a marketing Bill it is to improve prices. If it is to improve prices, you have to set off against that the investigation committee's, the consumers' committees, and they are out for the very reverse of what this Bill proposes to do. It is perfectly certain that the Bill as at present drawn is no earthly good to our farmers in the North. They have a financial liability with no possible chance of advantage out of the Bill. [Interruption.] Might I ask the hon. Member who is outside the House to refrain from interrupting.

I was under the impression that somebody was speaking from outside the House, but I could not detect the individual. Will the two hon. Members standing at the back beyond the Bar please sit down.

This Bill is going to affect our agricultural community for which I have a great regard. You have taken power in this Bill to coerce a minority which I consider is far too-large. You are to compel them to come into this measure whether they want to do so or not, and you are to compel them to come into a financial liability whether they want to do so or not. I think that is monstrous. [Interruption.] I am glad so many Members agree with me that it is monstrous to try and compel a minority against their will to come into a Bill like this. I think the Bill is so drawn that it will never work. The chances of gain are so small as compared with the chances of loss, and the committee's investigations are going to ruin the chance of getting any real return. The Bill has been very badly drawn. Then again you are going to ruin existing markets which have been built up for generations, which have been in existence for over one hundred years, and which have helped farmers through very difficult times.

This Marketing Bill ought never to be supported by any reasonable or substantial farmer. Then you have the very difficult question of price. How on earth are you to control prices in this country if you do not deal with foreign imports? [Interruption.] How are you to deal with cereal imports if you are not to deal with cereals? Here you are to control the price of home cereals when at the same time you allow incoming cereals to supplant them. Do you think that is going to help the British farmer? Everyone who has had anything to do with the marketing of cereals knows that there is a limited market, and, therefore, if you allow unlimited imports as opposed to controlled prices for home cereals you are going to create a very difficult situation for the farmers. Not one word has been said by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to dealing with potatoes. This is purely a milk and hops Bill—[Interruption]—and nothing else. It is so drawn, and the financial conditions are so stringent—while the inquiries and investigation committees are so overpowering—that the Bill will never work. From the point of view of the Agricultural Committee, I recommend the House to refuse a Third Reading to the Bill.

I should not have intervened, but for the last speech. It would be a great mistake to allow the Debate to close down on that note. The hon. and gallant Member says he is quite sure the Bill will not work. I am sure that if that was believed by the hon. Members above the Gangway we should not be here at this hour. It is because they are quite sure that it will work that we are having all this fuss. I noticed that the hon. and gallant Member said that the Bill would be useless unless they controlled imports. Control of imports in relation to hops is an outstanding example. You had a £4 duty on hops and your hops came down to 50s. a cwt. [Interruption.] You applied your remedy of tariffs, and your tariff was powerless to help you—despite the fact that it was a heavy tariff—because you had no organised market. You threw the whole hop industry into chaos. I want to point out, on the other hand, in relation to butter, that you had an advertisement from two of the largest local authorities in the "Farmer and Stockbreeder," and other papers, asking for tenders for British butter. That advertisement was from two of our largest institutions, and they did not get a single tender for the supply of British butter.

Why?

Because you are not organised; because you are producing little quantities of butter of varying qualities and sending it in small quantities to various markets. If you had a tariff on butter to-morrow, you would not be able to compete and take large contracts without a Bill of this kind. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on producing the Bill. It is the greatest step forward this House has made to help our greatest basic industry. The question of marketing has not moved forward for the last 50 or 60 years. It has gone on with the same methods. Everyone who deals with the farmer is organised. Everyone who sells stuff to him is organised within rings and combines. Take even this week my own case of sending produce into the market. I sent some hundreds of pounds of black currants. The return I got was a matter of 2d. per pound, and yet in the shops they were marked up at 6d. and 8d. a lb. That has nothing to do with foreign competition. Between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays you have £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 of money—enough to put the agricultural industry on its feet without the question of tariffs. The matter of tariffs you may have to consider—

The hon. Member must not widen the debate.

I should be very sorry to widen the debate. I would only say that, unless you can bring into agricultural marketing some system, then there is no hope for British agriculture. They take stuff into the market now, and nobody knows how many buyers will be there and what stuff would be there. We do not know whether there will be fifteen or two hundred cattle or two buyers or twenty. You get gluts in one market and shortages in another. A few dealers take these goods and ship them from market to market and get a handsome living. We are not coercing farmers. One hon. Member drew a sorry picture of a farmer being forced to sell his cattle because his stuff had dried up, and they were starving on grass land. Does he think that sixty-six per cent. of the farmers are arrant fools? Before a tithe of these things would happen the sixty-six per cent. of the farmers would have to take leave of their senses. We have to give them credit for being practical business men. This is a permissive Measure to give them power to organise and run their own industry. There will, of course, be a number of people who will be reluctant to come in. They are people in the hands of the dealers and other people, and there will be a lot of people working to prevent the scheme coming into operation. When it is in operation these others will come in. I congratulate the Minister on getting the Bill through, for this courtesy, and for his knowledge of the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Division No. 392.]	AYES.	[12.49 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Paling, Wilfrid
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Herriotts, J.	Potts, John S.
Alpass, J. H.	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Price, M. P.
Ammon, Charles George	Hoffman, P. C.	Quibell, D. J. K.
Arnott, John	Hollins, A.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Attlee, Clement Richard	Horrabin, J. F.	Raynes, W. R.
Aylea, Walter	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-spring)
Barr, James	Isaacs, George	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Batey, Joseph	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Ritson, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)	Romeril, H. G.
Benson, G.	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bowen, J. W.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Rowson, Guy
Brooke, W.	Kelly, W. T.	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Brothers, M.	Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Sanders, W. S.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Kinley, J.	Sawyer, G. F.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Lang, Gordon	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Burgess, F. G.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Cameron, A. G.	Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)	Sherwood, G. H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Law, Albert (Bolton)	Shield, George William
Chater, Daniel	Law, A. (Rosendale)	Shillaker, J. F.
Cluse, W. S.	Lawrence, Susan	Simmons, C. J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)	Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Compton, Joseph	Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Leach, W.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Daggar, George	Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Dallas, George	Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dalton, Hugh	Lees, J.	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)	Leonard, W.	Sorensen, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D	Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Stamford, Thomas W.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Lindley, Fred W.	Strauss, G. R.
Duncan, Charles	Lloyd, C. Ellis	Sullivan, J.
Ede, James Chuter	Logan, David Gilbert	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Edmunds, J. E.	Longbottom, A. W.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Lunn, William	Thurtle, Ernest
Egan, W. H.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Tinker, John Joseph
Freeman, Peter	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Toole, Joseph
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	McElwee, A.	Vaughan, David
Gibbins, Joseph	McEntee, V. L.	Viant, S. P.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)	McShane, John James	Walker, J.
Gill, T. H.	Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thamplon)	Wallace, H. W.
Glassey, A. E.	Manning, E. L.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gossling, A. G.	Mansfield, W.	Wellock, Wilfred
Gould, F.	Marley, J.	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Marshall, Fred	West, F. R.
Gray, Milner	Mathers, George	Westwood, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)	Matters, L. W.	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Messer, Fred	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	Middleton, G.	Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mills, J. E.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Milner, Major J.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Montague, Frederick	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)	Morley, Ralph	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Mort, D. L.	Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)	Murnin, Hugh	Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville	Noel Baker, P. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Haycock, A. W.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.
Hayday, Arthur	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Hayes, John Henry	Palin, John Henry

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Albery, Irving James	Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Butler, R. A.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Campbell, E. T.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Boyce, Leslie	Carver, Major W. H.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon	Bracken, B.	Castle Stewart, Earl of
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Brass, Captain Sir William	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Bird, Ernest Roy	Broadbent, Colonel J.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Boothby, R. J. G.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Chapman, Sir S.

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 128.

Christie, J. A.	Hartington, Marquess of	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Haslam, Henry C.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Colman, N. C. D.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Rose, Ronald D.
Colville, Major D. J.	Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cooper, A. Duff	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Salmon, Major I.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Iveagh, Countess of	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Savery, S. S.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey	Smithers, Waldron
Dixey, A. C.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Thompson, Luke
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.)	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ferguson, Sir John	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Fison, F. G. Clavering	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Ford, Sir P. J.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Frece, Sir Walter de	Muirhead, A. J.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Nall-Cain, A. R. N.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Wells, Sydney R.
Ganzoni, Sir John	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)	Peake, Capt. Osbert	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Perkins, W. R. D.	Womersley, W. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Ramsbotham, H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Remer, John R.	Sir George Penny and Captain
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James	Wallace

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Isle Of Man (Customs) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

After the controversial Bill that has occupied the House for so long, I am sure that the House will be determined to agree to this annual Bill for carrying out the decision of the Tynwald for the Isle of Man Customs. This is an annual Bill, and it is unprecedented for this House to do other than confirm the decision of the Tynwald.

I want to ask just one or two questions. Why is it that there is a difference in the dates between the main Bill for this country and that for the island? I notice that in the charge for carbon oil there is a difference in the date between the Bill for this country and that for the Isle of Man. The other point I am anxious about is why an alteration has been made in the case of the motor cycles which is not applicable to the Isle of Man Bill. I would also ask whether, when this Bill was submitted to Tynwald, they had an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether this great list of taxation was acceptable and should be imposed on their people? I put these questions because the island happens to be in a position that it is without debt—and I hope that that will be remembered when we come to another matter—and is quite prepared to pay its share and meet all the charges against it out of revenue. But I do ask why the changes made in the main Bill have not been made applicable to the island.

With regard to the date, it is the usual habit of the Tynwald to carry these Customs duties to August. As to the merits of the Bill, the position is, as the hon. Member knows, that we have certain Customs duties in this country and that Tynwald imposes certain customs duties in the Isle of Man. They have the initiative in the matter. I ask the House to pass the Bill.

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

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for to-morrow.—[ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Public Works Loans Bill

Order for Second Beading read.

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

Hon. Members have no doubt looked at this Bill and are aware of the principal contents of it. The usual practice in these Bills is followed, and the amount I am asking for is £30,000,000. [Interruption.]

Is that all?

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this is a Bill which is customary and that it follows the usual precedent. The control of this Fund is in the hands of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. I do not think I need describe the Bill further.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that he does not think he need take up the time of the House to explain this Bill. A more cynical form of disrespect for Parliament I have never heard. [Interruption.] This is a Bill which the Financial Secretary thinks will take the House only sixty seconds to consider. I have material enough to discuss the Bill for three-quarters of an hour. I do not intend to do so at one o'clock in the morning. The Financial Secretary will remember that when the similar Bill came up last year we spent several hours debating it. He sits there and says in a breath with a smile on his face that it is all common form. It is not common form, and I make my protest. I therefore ask that when we come to the next stage of this Bill the Patronage Secretary will allow it to be put down at a proper hour, because there are certain things which we want to know and to have discussed.

I want to express, on behalf of the Harbour Trustees of Stone-haven—theirs is the first loan to be remitted in this Bill—their appreciation of what the Government are proposing to do. I feel that I owe some apology to various Government Departments for the way I have insisted on their considering this debt, which has burdened the harbour trustees for so long. While it is the balance of a non-guaranteed loan of £7,000, the amount remitted in the Bill being £6,653, the Financial Secretary will no doubt be aware that the real amount he is remitting, including interest, the total debt of these trustees, is nearer £12,000 than £6,000. He will appreciate the relief that this means to these trustees, and I wish to thank him.

May I be allowed very shortly to add my thanks for the inclusion of the second item in this Bill? I am sure it is a matter over which I have given the Secretary of State for Scotland some trouble, and I thank him for having got this small item into the Bill. The unfortunate undertaking, when it started, hoped to be a prosperous one, but depending on the uncertain return from the herring fishing, it fell upon evil days and into the condition in which it was quite unable to meet its obligations. Therefore, the trustees are receiving the aid in this Bill.

I rise to ask one question. I want to know whether this £30,000,000 is new money or whether the Bill is only to give powers to the Local Government Commissioners to turn over money that they have already got. If it is new money, I want to enter a protest. The condition of the country today seems to me highly dangerous for asking for these powers.

With the leave of the House, I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman. Of the Bill introduced last year a considerable balance is still outstanding. I think about £15,000,000, but that ceases to be effective with the passage of the new Act. This Bill provides for a possible amount of £30,000,000, but that includes any moneys which may be repaid out of the existing loans during the current year. It is anticipated that something like £8,000,000 will be repaid, and to that extent the whole of that £30,000,000 will not be new money. Very possibly the whole of the £30,000,000 will not be used, as was the case in the previous year.

A protest was made at the hour at which we have taken this Bill and the Financial Secretary has not deigned to give any reply to that protest. He introduced the Bill by saying it was a normal and ordinary Bill, just £30,000,000, which the House of Commons has always passed in past years. He knows, as a matter of fact, that we have not passed this Bill automatically and that we have not taken the Second Reading at this hour of the night. I ask the House to consider how it likes the country to see it at this hour not very burdened with a sense of gravity. [Interruption.] The interruptions are quite characteristic. This is the atmosphere in which we are discussing an addition of £30,000,000 to our Debt, and hon. Members opposite think it a sufficient reply to say that the benches behind me are empty. I shall not pause to discuss whether the benches should be empty or filled, but it is a fact that the House is half empty and quite unfit to discuss the matter. [Interruption.] The House is showing itself perfectly incapable of discussing this matter with a sense of gravity. That is always the case when we have late sittings, I never see hon. Members opposite wish to discuss any subject, certainly not a serious subject. That is the invariable judgment of anyone who sees the House at this time of the evening.

This is the atmosphere in which the Government think it dignified to introduce a proposal of this kind. Let us remember that this Bill raises one of the gravest questions of the Government's whole policy. It raises that part of the Government's policy on which the Government are most vulnerable—and that is saying a good deal. The whole of their public works policy from the beginning of their administration, in spite of their prophecies, has been a ghastly and unrelieved failure, and it is partly to avoid discussion of that issue that the Government bring forward the Measure at this hour of the evening and refuse with an extraordinary display of discourtesy to respond to a very mild request made from this side that the next stage of the Bill should be put down at a reasonable hour. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, while registering my protest, which other Members have also felt justified in making, that that question should be answered, and may I appeal to the Government to see that an opportunity is given to debate the question of their public works policy on the latter stages of this Bill.

I will certainly respond to the question put to me by the Noble Lord. I hope we shall endeavour to bring the later stage of this proposal forward at a time which will enable us to have a discussion. I am sorry it has not been possible to-night. This has been frequently done in previous Parliaments, but we shall endeavour to discuss the later stages at an early hour. I should like to say this. I think the Noble Lord knows quite well that this is not the whole policy of the Government with regard to finance. These matters are almost exclusively in the hands of the Public Works Loan Commissioners and this has been a common policy with the Government for a great number of years. I do not think it involves any new departure which demands long Debate. I shall endeavour, so far as is in my power, to see that we have an opportunity for debate.

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

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Public Works Loans (Remission Of Debt)

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of the unpaid balances of principal and the arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of loans to the Stonehaven Harbour Trustees, Brownies Taing Pier Trustees, Messrs. Clinch and Goddard, Albert Ernest Crisp, Frederick Henry Moore, and Walter Rhodes, respectively."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 And 1929

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Company, which was presented on the 16th day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

Road Traffic Act, 1930

Resolved,

"That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations (No. 2), 1931, which were presented on the 22nd day of June, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-Two Minutes after One o'Clock.

Volume 255: debated on Monday 13 July 1931

House Of Commons

Private Business

Oral Answers To Questions

Government Departments

India Office (Higher Clerical Officers)

Post Office Workers (Retiring Age)

India

Burma

British Goods (Boycott And Export)

Red Shirt Volunteers

Fiji (Indian Community)

Labour Conditions (Commission's Report)

Underground Employment (Women)

Police Pay

Juvenile Employment

Forced Labour, Balasinor

Round Table Conference

Meerut Prisoners (Defence Fund)

Age Of Consent (Joshi Report)

Births And Marriages (Notification)

China

Iraq

Minorities

British Forces

Afghanistan (Imported Munitions)

Russia (Coal)

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Medical And Surgical Records

Final Awards (Recurrent Disability)

Trade And Commerce

Export Credits (Russia)

Brazil

Buenos Ayres Central Railway (Order)

Czechoslovakia And Yugoslavia (Tariff Agreement)

Domestic Exports

Agriculture

Paper Sacks

Criminal Law

Palestine (Petroleum)

Fiji (Sedition Ordinance)

Housing (Foreign Materials)

Officers Training Corps (Flights)

Ordnance Maps And Admiralty Charts

Reparations And Inter-Governmental Debts

Fishing Industry (Report)

Land Value Tax

Electricity Supply, North Riding

Business Of The House

Ministry Of Health Provisional Orders (Great Marlow Water And Yeadon Water) Bill

Ministry Of Health Provisional Order (Yeadon Water) Bill

Orders Of The Day

Agricultural Marketing Bill

Clause 3—(Poll On Question Whether Scheme To Remain In Force)

Clause 4—(Regulation Of Marketing And Encouragement Of Co-Operation, Education And Research)

Clause 5—(Miscellaneous Provisions Of Schemes)

Clause 6—(Financial Powers And Duties Of Boards)

Clause 7—(Effect Of Schemes On Contracts)

Clause 8—(Consumers' Committees And Committee Of Investigation)

Clause 12—(Short-Term Loans)

Clause 14—(Constitution And Functions Of Agricultural Marketing Re-Organisation Commissions)

Clause 17—(Products To Which Act Applies)

Clause 18—(Interpretation)

Clause 19—(Application To Scotland)

First Schedule—(Submission, Amendment And Revocation Of Schemes)

Second Schedule—(Provisions As To The Incorporation, Registration, And Winding-Up Of Boards)

Third Schedule—(Additional Matters For Which Schemes Must Provide

Fourth Schedule—(Products To Which Act Applies)

Isle Of Man (Customs) Bill

Public Works Loans Bill

Public Works Loans (Remission Of Debt)

Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 And 1929

Road Traffic Act, 1930