Commons Chamber

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

House Of Commons

Thursday, 17th March, 1932.

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

Member Sworn

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Right honourable David Lloyd George, O.M., for Carnarvon District of Boroughs.

Private Business

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Commercial Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

South Wales Electric Power Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Oral Answers To Questions

Unemployment

Benefit (Dependants' Allowances)

asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider the desirability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to make provision for the payment of dependants' allowances to the wife, if under 65 years of age, and family of men aged over 65 years who are engaged in industry and temporarily unemployed, seeing that the employer continues to pay contributions after men have received an old age pension?

No, Sir, I cannot consider this in advance of the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance.

Transitional Payments

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state to the nearest convenient date the number of those who have had their claims for transitional payments examined by the public assistance committee for the Burgh of Perth; how many have been granted full benefit; how many partial benefit; and how many have been entirely disallowed?

With my Noble Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table analysing the total number of determinations in the manner desired.

Following is the table:

DETERMINATIONS given by the public assistance committee for the large Burgh of Perth on application for transitional payments—12th November, 1931, to 20th February, 1932.

Number of initial applications	930
Number of renewal applications	1,097
Total	2,027
Allowed at maximum benefit rates	960
Allowed at rates lower than maximum benefit rates	805
Needs of applicants held not to justify payment being made	262

asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures available of cases determined under the means test, and the number allowed full benefit, partial benefit, and no benefit at all, expressed in terms of percentage; and also the figures of the counties with the highest percentage and lowest percentage of claims disallowed altogether?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have applied for relief to the public assistance committees under the means test and the number whose claims have been rejected?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table analysing the total number of determinations in the manner desired. As regards the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I am having the figures got out, and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Following is the table:

DETERMINATIONS given by public assistance committees in Great Britain on applications for transitional payments, 12th November, 1931, to 20th February, 1932:

Number of initial applications	1,421,484
Number of renewal applications	1,791,378
	3,212,862

	Percentage of total applications.
Allowed at maximum benefit rates	53
Allowed at rates lower than maximum benefit rates	35.3
Needs of applicants held not to justify payment being made	11.7

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of persons, whose claims were rejected by the public assistance committee under the means test, who took advantage of their right of appeal to the review committee; and whether he will consider issuing a form of words to applicants informing them that they have the right of appeal to the review committee?

I have no statistics with regard to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the arrangements for considering representations made by applicants in regard to determinations affecting them are within the discretion of the authority, but, if the hon. Member is aware of cases in which applicants are not aware of such arrangements, and will give me particulars, I shall be glad to consult the authority concerned.

Is the Minister not aware that the method by which the means test is being put into operation throughout the country is causing grave dissatisfaction? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of my question, as to whether he will consider issuing a form of words to applicants informing them that they have the right of appeal to the review committee?

I have already replied to that question. The public assistance committees in the country have their own arrangements, and it is not possible for me to give them directions; but I am anxious to help the hon. Member, and, if he will give me the name of any authority that he has in mind, I will communicate with that authority in order to allay the grievance which he states exists.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is scarcely a local authority in the country that is not appealed to every week by demonstrations regarding the manner in which the means test has been operated?

15.

asked the Minister of Labour how many claims for transitional payments have been investigated by the public assistance committee of Nuneaton from the date on which the means test was first instituted until the end of February, 1932; in how many cases benefit has been disallowed; and in how many cases benefit has been granted in full and in part, respectively?

With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table analysing the total number of determinations in the manner desired.

Following is the table:

DETERMINATIONS given by the Nuneaton Guardians Committee on Applications for Transitional Payments—12th November, 1931, to 20th February, 1932.

Number of initial applications	2,013
Number of renewal applications	1,961
	3,974
Allowed at maximum benefit rates	2,554
Allowed at rates lower than maximum benefit rates	412
Needs of applicants held not to justify payment being made	1,008

Training Centre, Slough

11.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can now state whether he will admit a percentage of local young unemployed men to the Slough training centre?

I am having inquiries made, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, and I will write to him in due course.

Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that unemployment in Slough is now worse than it has ever been, and also that the new factories which are being established employ women's labour chiefly, so that the men get no chance; that it is impossible for the local youths to sit quietly and watch the importation of people to be trained in jobs which they consider they have the right to have?

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that those are the very points upon which I am making inquiries.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if unemployment is worse in Slough than it is in, say, Durham?

Is it the fact that permits are issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to foreigners in order that they may take jobs here?

Is not the unemployment due to the fact that so many trainees are coming from other places?

Tin-Mining Industry

12.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of tin miners unemployed on 22nd February, 1932, or the nearest convenient date?

For statistical purposes, insured persons in the tin-mining industry are included in the industrial group "Lead, Tin and Copper Mining." At 22nd February, 1932, there were 3,154 insured persons in this classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.

Insurance (Royal Commission's Report)

13.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state approximately the date when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. T. Cook) on the 8th March.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong feeling throughout the country that we should have this report as early as possible, in order to bring about reforms in the administration??

Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of that feeling; but I would remind my hon. Friend that this is a matter which is entirely outside my control. I am just as anxious as he is that we should have the report as soon as possible, but I would remind him that the matters which the Royal Commission are considering are extremely difficult and very complex.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how often this Commission sits in the week, and for how many hours a day?

I am afraid I cannot give that information, but I know that they are sitting constantly, and I think that even now they are receiving fresh evidence.

Is it not a fact that the Commission has not met this week?

North-Western Division

16.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can make any statement as to the nature and extent of the diminution in unemployment in Lancashire during the past month?

Separate figures for Lancashire are not available. In the North-Western Division as a whole, which includes Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumberland and Westmorland, there was a net decrease between 25th January and 22nd February, 1932, of 20,380 in the number of insured persons recorded as unemployed. There was a decrease of 12,400 in the cotton industry, 1,829 in coal mining, 1,394 in the building industry and 1,343 in textile bleaching, dyeing, and finishing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the fact that so many cases of unemploy- ment claims are being turned down, the register itself is not a correct indication of the number of unemployed?

No, I do not accept that for a moment, because, if persons have not registered at the Exchange, the inference is that they have either got work or that they do not want the assistance of the Exchange in getting work.

Will the right hon. Baronet answer the question whether unemployment is increasing or otherwise in Lancashire, apart altogether from giving figures with regard to the number of persons on the register?

I have answered the question on the Paper. I have said that the number recorded as unemployed has decreased this month by 20,300.

Is it not an admitted fact that that is just one of the areas where people who are turned down from unemployment benefit do not register—that is, married women?

No, the inference that I draw is that it is just one of the areas where I am glad to say employment has increased and unemployment has diminished.

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimate of the increase in the number of non-registered unemployed due to the means test, the Anomalies Act, and the other legislative and administrative changes since August, 1931?

It is estimated that at 22nd February, 1932, the total number of persons who had ceased to register at Employment Exchanges after disallowance of benefit or transitional payments, was approximately 148,000, but as pointed out in the reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 11th February, it is clear that nothing approaching this number should properly be included in a total of the unemployed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of the 148,000 it is estimated will be normally unemployed?

That is exactly the supplementary question which the hon. Member asked before. The answer is that a very considerable number have found employment and the balance must be considered as not wanting the benefit and advantages of the Exchanges.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what percentage, if any, of the figure is due to the working of the Anomalies Act as applied to seasonal workers?

The Anomalies Act, I would remind the hon. Member, was passed by the last Government. I cannot give the percentage which the lion. Member wants without notice.

Is it not the case that at least a number of these people are affected and that they were deliberately put off under the Anomalies Act?

Certainly, a number were put off by reason of the Anomalies Act.

Bread Prices

10.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give a return of the average prices of bread per four-pound loaf at the latest comparable date in Britain, France, Germany, and Denmark?

As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The average prices of bread at the latest comparable date, for the countries concerned, are given in the Table below. The figures shown are taken from official publications, and relate to white bread, except in the case of Germany, for which country the only information available for any recent date relates to rye bread. In the absence of information concerning the qualities of bread to which the various quotations relate, it is not known how far the prices shown may be regarded as comparable one with another.

Country.	Date to which price relates.	Average price per 4 lb. of bread.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (general average).	1st January, 1932	7d.
France (Paris)	January, 1932	4·09 Francs.
Germany (Berlin)^*	20th January, 1932	0·65 Reichsmarks.
(34 towns)^*	20th January, 1932	0·49 to 0·85 Reichsmarks.
Denmark (general average)	January, 1932	1·16 Kroner.
^* The prices quoted for Germany are for rye bread. The latest available information as to the price of white bread in Germany relates to January, 1931, when the average price in six large towns was reported to be equivalent to 1·49 Reichsmarks for 4 lb.

Ex-Service Men (King's National Roll)

asked the Minister of Labour whether the number of firms registered on the King's Roll has decreased or increased during the last year?

The number of firms enrolled on the King's National Roll decreased by 566 from 25,910 in December, 1930, to 25,34,4 in December, 1931.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many municipalities are on the roll?

There is another question on that point.

Are there any steps that the right hon. Gentleman can take in order to get further firms to enrol?

In this matter we rely upon the King's Roll National Council, and I will see that the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, and the answer, are brought to the attention of the Council.

Would it be possible, if I put down another question, for the right hon. Gentleman to say how many ex-service men have been absorbed under this scheme?

Yes, Sir. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down.

asked the Minister of Labour whether all local authorities have now registered on the King's Roll and, if not, how many have not so registered?

With the exception of 50, all local authorities which, by reason of the size of the staff employed by them, could be expected to fulfil the requisite conditions, are enrolled on the King's National Roll.

Would it be possible to make public the names of those local authorities that have not enrolled?

That question has been asked very often in past years, and the King's Roll National Council have themselves considered it. They consider however that to publish the names would not achieve the end which they have in view and they prefer that these authorities should not be pilloried.

Would it not be possible to circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO that Members of Parliament may know them?

I do not think that that would have the approval of the King's Roll National Council. They have directly asked us not to do it.

asked the Minister of Labour what means he adopts to ensure that firms which have registered on the King's Roll continue to employ the right percentage of disabled men?

The local administration of the King's Roll Scheme is a responsibility of local King's Roll Committees, which, from time to time, take such steps as they consider necessary to satisfy themselves that employers on the Roll are observing the terms of their undertakings. A Certificate of Enrolment under The National Scheme is usually granted for two years only, and the position is reviewed by the local committee at the end of that period before enrolment is renewed.

Could the Minister make tests among a few firms in different parts of England, to see whether this scheme is being carried out?

I will inquire of the King's Roll National Council as to whether they can provide me with the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks.

Government Departments

Ministry Of Labour

14.

asked the Minister of Labour to what extent it has been found possible to reduce the staffs of the Ministry of Labour in consequence of the amount of work connected with transitional payments which has been taken over by public assistance committees since November last?

The administration of the needs test was additional work, which, though undertaken in the main by the public assistance authorities fell also in part on the staffs of the Exchanges. There has, therefore, been no reduction of staff on this account but, owing to the fall in the Live Register, the total of the Exchange staffs at the end of February was lower by 428 than it was at the end of September.

Ministry Of Health

33.

asked the Minister of Health the number of salaried persons holding medical qualifications on the headquarters staffs of the Ministry of Health in March, 1925, and March, 1932?

The numbers are 56 and 52, respectively.

Women Factory Inspectors

27.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of women workers in the factories of England and Wales; the number of factories that may be inspected by his Department; and the number of women inspectors available for inspection duties?

Returns show that in 1930 there were 1,806,850 women and girls employed in factories: the figure for 1931 is not yet available. The number of registered factories at the end of 1931 was 155,354. There are at present 56 women inspectors in the divisional and district staffs. It would, of course, not be practicable to lay down any rule that factories where women only are employed should be inspected only by women inspectors.

Are any of these women inspectors medical inspectors?

I could not say without notice.

28.

asked the Home Secretary what is the number of women factory inspectors in Classes 1A, 1B and 2; and whether, in future, he will arrange that the Estimates should show the numbers of each sex in all classes of inspectors?

There are at present nine women inspectors in Class 1A, 19 in Class 1B and 26 in Class 2. As regards the latter part of the question, I am afraid it would not be possible to comply with the hon. Member's request. The men's and women's staffs have now been amalgamated, and while the total complement of inspectors in each of the classes mentioned is definitely fixed, and shown accordingly in the Estimates, the number in each sex may vary from time to time.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there ought to be some discrimination in the Estimates?

I will consider the suggestion.

Assistant Under-Secretaries Of State

31.

asked the Home Secretary whether the three assistant Under-Secretaries of State, for whom a provision of £4,331 is made in the Estimates for 1932, have yet been appointed; what will be their duties; and why it is considered necessary to appoint three assistant under-secretaries in place of one principal assistant secretary?

These appointments have been made with effect as from 1st April next. The changes mentioned in the question are only part of a re-organisation which has been effected in the Home Office and which was long overdue. It is the result of very careful inquiry, and has, of course, the concurrence of the Treasury. It will be brought into effect gradually, and there will, in fact, be no increase in expenditure in the coming financial year.

Income Tax Officers, Carnarvon

47.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Income Tax offices in the county of Carnarvon; the number of staff in each office; and the number of inspectors and staff who are able to speak the Welsh language?

I will circulate the information asked for in the form of a tabular statement, but perhaps I may say at once that more than 50 per cent. of the staff are able to speak Welsh.

Following is the information:

Office.		Staff.	Welsh Speaking.
Bangor	…	25	16
Llandudno	…	15	6
Portmadoc	…	19	12

Customs Officials, Bristol (Overtime)

54.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the communication sent to him from the Bristol port authorities with regard to payment for overtime of the customs officials; and what answer he proposes to send?

I cannot trace the receipt of the communication referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will be good enough to send me a copy I will certainly consider the matter.

Workmen's Compensation

17.

asked the Home Secretary if returns are made to his Department of the failure of companies or concerns where the assets are not sufficient to meet the legal claims of workmen entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if so, how many failed during 1930 and 1931, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

My Department is informed by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and the Mines Department of cases of failure among colliery undertakings, and it then makes inquiry through the liquidator or receiver in regard to the outstanding claims. These inquiries show that there were 10 cases in 1930 to 1931, including one Lancashire case, in which it is possible or probable that the assets may be insufficient but, so far as the Department is aware, in none of these cases has a final settlement been reached.

Wild Birds, Kent

21.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the destruction of a white-tailed eagle in Kent, contrary to the regulations made under the Kent Wild Birds Order; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Yes, Sir. I am informed by the Chief Constable of Kent that proceedings are being instituted against the person who is reported to have shot the bird.

Penton Ville Prison Staff

22.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the staff at Pentonville Prison is so short that officers have to be drawn from the division off duty at week-ends; and will he consider taking steps to prevent an interruption of the officers' normal rest days on alternate Saturdays and Sundays?

The turns of duty of prison officers are so arranged that so far as practicable each officer shall have two free days every second week-end. At Pentonville the number of officers called in from the off-duty division on Saturday or Sunday does not exced five out of a staff of 96, and no officer has had his week-end interrupted in this way more than four or five times in a year. An officer so called in is given equivalent time off in the following week. If no such occasional calls were allowed, the ordinary week-day staff would have to be increased beyond the requirements of the service, and the expense of this would not be warranted.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the staff of Pentonville has been cut down in the last month?

Not without notice.

Police

Amalgamations (Inquiry)

23.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of economy, he will draw up a scheme for the abolition of all small local police forces and for their incorporation in the appropriate county police forces?

This proposal raises questions which require careful consideration. It is desirable that all those interested should have an opportunity to state their points of view, and to this end it is proposed to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to consider and report upon the question of the amalgamation of small police forces with larger units of police administration.

Women Police

30.

asked the Home Secretary whether since the introduction of women police the number of cases of attacks on women and girls has a tendency to increase or to decrease?

Since women police were first employed, during the War, the reported numbers of some kinds of attacks on women and girls have decreased, while others have increased. Such fluctuations are due to various factors and I am unable to suggest any direct relation between them and the employment of women police.

Do we understand that the appointment of women police does not seem to have caused any marked diminution?

The comparatively small number of women police would not have any great effect over the whole country.

Are men more effective than women?

Transport

Minor Traffic Offences

24.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to make the new procedure for dealing with minor traffic offences in the Metropolitan district applicable to the provinces, he will issue a circular on the subject to the appropriate authorities?

I am proposing to inform Chief Officers of Police outside the Metropolis of the action that is being taken by the Commissioner of Police both as regards procedure for dealing with minor traffic offences and also the special measures he is proposing to take to prevent heavy vehicles from being driven at excessive speeds.

Road And Rail Accidents

29.

asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of persons killed and injured in this country on railways and roads, respectively, in each of the last 10 years?

As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The numbers of persons known by the police to have been killed or injured by vehicles and horses in streets, roads, or public places in Great Britain are available only for the year 1926 and onward. Prior to 1926, the information collected related only to accidents resulting in death or personal injury. The figures for each of the last 10 years are as follow:

Number of Accidents.
Year.		Fatal Accidents.		Non-Fatal Accidents.
1922	…	2,768	…	67,429
1923	…	2,979	…	80,122
1924	…	3,631	…	94,584
1925	…	3,971	…	111,502

NUMBER of Persons Killed or Injured.
Year.		Killed.		Injured.
1926	…	4,886	…	133,888
1927	…	5,329	…	148,575
1928	…	6,138	…	164,838
1929	…	6,696	…	170,917
1930	…	7,305	…	177,895
1931	…	6,690	…	202,120

The numbers of persons (excluding trespassers and suicides) killed and injured on railways in Great Britain in each

of the years from 1921 to 1930 are as follow. The figures for 1931 are not yet available:

Year.		Killed.		Injured.
1921	…	416.	…	18,873
1922	…	402	…	19,344
1923	…	407	…	23,104
1924	…	462	…	25,641
1925	…	465	…	26,393
1926	…	374	…	23,433
1927	…	435	…	25,403
1928	…	460	…	24,324
1929	…	417	…	25,364
1930	…	380	…	24,311

London Passenger Transport Bill

45.

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to proceed with the London Passenger Transport Bill?

I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

If I repeat the Question when the House reassembles after Easter, will the sight hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply?

I shall be very glad. In fact, I intend to make an announcement as soon as possible. Negotiations are proceeding.

Is it the intention to proceed with the Bill introduced last year, or is it the intention of the Government, on the other hand, to introduce a new Bill altogether?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to that question some weeks ago.

Sunday Entertainments

25.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with the legislation he intends to introduce to deal with matters covered by the Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation) Act, 1931, which is due to expire during the present year, he can give an assurance that the Bill will be so drafted as to enable a free decision to be reached by the House as to what types of Sunday entertainment are to be permitted?

The Bill will be substantially identical with the Bill introduced last year by my predecessor, as amended in Committee. In that case a wide range of discussion was permissible, and I have no reason to suppose that the position will not be the same on this occasion.

Will the decision be left to a free vote?

Yes.

In drafting the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to preserve the sanctity of the British Sunday?

Public Billiard Rooms (Licences)

32.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to remove the grant of licences for public billiard rooms from brewster sessions and transferring the power to the local authorities?

This question must await the consideration by the Government of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing.

National Health Insurance

34.

asked the Minister of Health whether be proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the problems connected with national health insurance; and, if so, when?

The problems to which the hon. Member refers are receiving my right hon. Friend's most careful consideration as a matter of urgency, but he is not yet in a position to make any statement as to the introduction of legislation to deal with them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prolongation Act, which keeps unemployed insured persons in the scheme, will finish at the end of the year?

The hon. Gentleman will notice the wording in the answer, that these matters are under consideration as a matter of urgency.

35.

asked the Minister of Health the reason for the present disadvantageous position of deposit contributors compared with contributors through an approved society under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether he will consider an early amendment granting them equal privileges?

The National Health Insurance scheme has from the first been based on the provision of benefits to insured persons through approved societies, and the full advantages of the scheme can only be obtained through membership of a society. My right hon. Friend sees no reason for amending the Act in this respect. The Act already contains special provision to meet the case of insured persons who, by reason of ill-health, are unable to secure admission to an approved society.

Housing

Lancashire

36.

asked the Minister of Health if he will give the present number of houses per 1,000 of the inhabitants for Lancashire and separate figures for Leigh, Atherton, and Tyldesley; and will he gives corresponding figures for 1925?

My right hon. Friend regrets that figures based on last year's Census are not yet available for particular areas. He is sending the hon. Member a note of certain figures extracted from reports made by the medical officers of health for the three urban areas he mentions.

Is it not possible to publish figures at an early date for all districts in the country?

The figures are very complicated and require a great deal of analysis. I can assure the hon. Member that everything is being done in order to get publication at the earliest moment.

Rent Restrictions Act

37.

asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce the promised legislation to implement the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rent Restrictions?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given last week to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Hicks).

Is it not the case that the Government promised to bring in a Bill to deal with the position in this country as soon as they possibly could, and that last week the Lord President of the Council said that he was sorry that they would have no time?

The answer last week said that the Minister could not say at present when it would be possible.

Public Health

Milk And Dairies Act

41.

asked the Minister of Health whether any cases have been brought to his notice arising from neglect to conform with the regulations of the Milk and Dairies Act, so far as cowsheds and cowhouses are concerned; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?

In the limited time at his disposal, my right hon. Friend has been unable to trace any recent cases. The enforcement of the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Order is a matter for the local authorities and not for my Department, and where any alleged contravention of the Order is brought to my right hon. Friend's notice the first action is to communicate with the responsible local authority.

Midwives (Training Grants)

38.

asked the Minister of Health the total amount of grants disbursed by the Ministry during the year ended 5th April, 1931, towards the training of midwives; whether the grants were paid direct to training schools; and, if so, the number of pupils trained under such grants and the number proposing to practise as midwives and health visitors, respectively?

The total amount of the grants disbursed by the Ministry during the year ended 5th April, 1931, towards the training of midwives was £21,363. These grants were paid direct to the training schools. The number of pupils in respect of whom grants were paid was 752, of whom 717 proposed to practise as midwives and 35 as health visitors.

39.

asked the Minister of Health whether any regulations regarding the payment of grants for the training of midwives have been made under the Local Government Act, 1929?

No, Sir. The conditions governing the payment of grants for this purpose were settled and published in 1925, and were not affected by the passing of the Local Government Act of 1929.

Can my hon. Friend say whether provision was made in the Act for a revision of those regulations?

I will refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Memorandum 102 of 1925, where he will find those particulars outlined.

Cured Bacon

42.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that some bacon imported from America is cured in a solution of borax for preservation in transit; and what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that bacon so cured is not harmful to the health of the consumer?

The importation of bacon cured with borax is prohibited under the Preservatives Regulations. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any recent contravention of the Regulations in this respect but if the hon. Member will give him any particulars in his possession inquiries will be made.

Private Street Works

40.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet come to any decision as to the amendment of the law and practice in regard 'to private street works; and whether he is now in a position to make an announcement?

Suggestions for the amendment of the law and practice in regard to private street works are now being considered by the associations of the responsible local authorities and my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any definite announcement on the subjeot.

National Finance

Pound Sterling (Exchange Value)

43.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action is being taken by the Government Ito check foreign speculation in sterling?

I would refer to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for the Western Isles Division (Mr. T. Ramsay) and to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on Monday last.

Income Tax

44.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of rewards paid during the current financial year to persons giving information to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to other taxpayers' incomes; and whether, in view of the hardship which may be caused to innocent persons in rebutting such information when incorrect, he will take steps to stop the practice of rewarding such informers?

The total amount of the rewards paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue during the current financial year is £1,050. These rewards are granted under statutory powers, conferred by Section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890. In my view there is no sufficient reason for making any change in the law in this matter.

53.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the rules which govern the granting of relief from Schedule A taxation on rents remitted on account of agricultural depression?

A landlord who, owing either to agricultural depression generally or to the farming difficulties of a particular tenant, grants a temporary remission of the whole or part of the rent of land used for farming, without any consideration therefor, is in the ordinary way granted a relief for Income Tax purposes. Relief is given by way of an allowance from the Schedule A assessment and, in the absence of special circumstances, is measured by the tax on the amount of rent actually remitted.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the extension of this concession to cottages in agricultural districts as well as to land where rents are remitted?

I should require notice of that question.

Beer Duty

46.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of standard barrels of beer brewed in February, 1931, and February, 19323 and the amounts of revenue represented by the figures of the respective years?

The figures are as follow:

	February, 1931.	February, 1932.
Number of standard barrels brewed	1,119,000	907,000
Excise duty-charged thereon	£4,335,000	£4,838,000

Entertainments Duty

48.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in considering any future imposition of the Entertainments Duty, he will take into consideration the adoption of some means whereby the duty payable in respect of entertainments at which living artistes appear can be remitted wholly or in part with the object of encouraging employment and British stage productions?

I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion; but I am sure he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.

War Gratuity Certificates (Conversion)

50.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for what reason no arrangements have been made to permit the conversion of war gratuity certificates in cases where their holders possess in the aggregate an amount of war savings certificates and/or war gratuity certificates in excess of £500; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the regulations so as to permit the continuance of the concession made to ex-service men under the new conversion scheme?

Holders of the special issue of war gratuity certificates who already hold the maximum number of certificates of other issues may continue to hold their war gratuity certificates until 31st March, 1940, with interest accruing after the tenth year at the rate of 1d. a month. Alternatively, they may convert them into 4½ per cent. Conversion Loan or 4 per cent. National Savings Bonds under the offers now open. The existing rights of holders of war gratuity certificates are not interfered with in any way whatever, and I regret that I cannot contemplate arrangements which would involve further special privileges to holders.

Newspaper Insurance (Stamp Duty)

52.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether newspapers and magazines offering insurance to registered readers against the risk of fire and/or personal accident are charged the 6d. duty on policies or contracts under the Finance Act, 1920; and, if so, the estimated approximate yield of the tax on such policies and contracts for the financial year 1931–32?

Section 116 of the Stamp Act, 1891, provides for the payment of an annual composition duty as an alternative to stamping policies in cases where, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, it is impracticable to require the ordinary 6d. duty to be stamped on policies. The newspapers insurances which my hon. Friend has in mind are dealt with under this Section. The estimated amount of this composition duty for the year 1931–32 payable in respect of newspaper and magazine insurance schemes is £36,000.

Members Of Parliament (Travel Vouchers)

51.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange that the travel vouchers for Members may also be made available for journeys by long-distance motor coaches?

If there is evidence of a general desire among Members to make use of travelling facilities by long-distance motor coaches, I will have my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion further explored. I fear, however, that the practical difficulties would be very great.

Friendly Societies (Registration)

55.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider taking steps to bring unregistered friendly societies under compulsory registration?

The registration of friendly societies has hitherto been voluntary, and a reversal of this principle involves difficult problems. The matter, however, is not being lost sight of, and if the hon. and gallant Member has in mind any particular instances of the activities of unregistered friendly societies, perhaps he would communicate on the subject with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

Agriculture

Drainage Grants

56.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if drainage grants for moorland farms are to be again continued for England?

I regret that it has been necessary to discontinue these grants on grounds of economy.

Then, may I ask why are those grants being continued in Scotland?

I am not concerned with that matter.

Am I to understand that Englishmen are to go without and that Scotsmen are to receive the grants?

Unemployed Allotment Holders (Assistance)

57.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the work done by the Society of Friends in placing out-of-work men on allotments is being held up by the withdrawal of the Government grant; and whether, in view of the improved financial position nationally, he will consider giving a grant to the society?

I understand from the Society of Friends that in connection with their scheme for assisting unemployed persons taking up allotments to obtain seeds, fertilisers, and implements, they have not so far refused any application owing to lack of funds, and they hope that as a result of their further public appeal for money, they will not find it necessary to do so. In reply to the last part of the question, as already stated, it will not be possible for the Government to provide money towards the cost of this scheme.

Wheat Bill

58.

(for Mr. JENNINGS) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider issuing a simple explanatory circular on the Wheat Bill so that small tillage farmers will be better able to understand it?

I recognise the value to farmers of an explanatory circular or leaflet dealing with the provisions of the Wheat Bill, and I have no doubt that the Wheat Commission, when appointed, would be prepared to consider the question of the preparation and issue of such a leaflet.

Beet-Sugar Industry

61.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the approximate total profit accruing to the beet-sugar factories in respect of refining imported raw sugar during each year in which such operations have been carried out; and whether any allowance was made for such subsidiary profits in the calculations upon which the original subsidy terms were based?

I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

62.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what have been the aggregate amounts, respectively, paid to farmers for sugar-beet in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Lincolnshire, and to beet-sugar factories situate in those counties in respect of subsidy and duty preference since the beginning of the beet-sugar subsidy scheme; and how these amounts compare with the total amounts disbursed to all farmers for beet and to all factories in respect of duty and subsidy over the same period?

As the reply includes a tabular statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

So far as payments to growers in particular areas are concerned, I can give figures only by reference to the situation of the factories for which the beets were grown. Subject to this proviso, the information desired by the hon. Member in

Area.				Aggregate Amounts paid to growers by factories in the area.	Total assistance granted to factories in the area.
Area.				Aggregate Amounts paid to growers by factories in the area.	Subsidy.	Effective duty preference.
				£	£	£
Norfolk	…	…	…	5,805,000	5,057,000	1,087,000
Suffolk	…	…	…	4,556,000	3,993,000	903,000
Lincolnshire	…	…	…	2,722,000	2,262,000	517,000
Great Britain	…	…	…	25,654,000	22,368,000	4,927,000

63.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the suitability of the agricultural land in the neighbourhood of Colchester for the growing of sugar-beet and having regard to the fact that there is no beet-sugar factory within a convenient distance, he will inquire as to the desirability and practicability of further steps being taken to develop the sugar-beet industry in this district?

No, Sir. The question of the desirability and practicability of erecting new beet-sugar factories is a matter for private enterprise.

Pigs (Import Licence)

64.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in pursuance of the discretion allowed to him under Section 27 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, he will reconsider the application made to his Department by Mr. R. Browning, of Tey Brook, Great Tey, Essex, in November last, for a licence to import two Landrace pigs from Denmark, as the reason for the application is for the purpose of improving the quality of that farmer's pigs?

I have reviewed this matter and see no reason for altering the decision already reached.

Am I to understand that the Minister is not willing to give a licence to any stockbreeder to import any of his stock?

The rule is that if a breed society brings stock into the country we consider it, but in individual cases like this it is unnecessary. We take the view that it is undesirable, particularly in view of the amount of foot-and-

respect of the subsidy period up to and including the 1930–31 season, is as follows:

mouth disease that exists in foreign countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the suggestion that breeders abroad are more likely to protect their own bacon than that of other people?

House Of Commons (Refreshment Department)

66.

asked the hon. Member for Monmouth as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee what change there has been in the consumption of Empire wines in the House of Commons since the initiation of the "Buy British" campaign, taking the figures as last given in answer to a question and those with reference to the present time?

The proportional sale of Empire Wines for the year ended 31st December, 1931, was 6.00 per cent., against 5.70 per cent. for the previous year.

Would it not be possible to establish a quota compelling all. Members to drink 15 per cent. of Empire wine?

Am I to understand that, in spite of all the propaganda, Members of Parliament are drinking practically no more Empire wine than they did two years ago?

May I ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether he can give any indication to the House of the quantity of Empire wine drunk by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

The reply to the first supplementary question, is that it is better to leave it to the discretion of hon. Members. In reply to the second supplementary, I may say that the Empire campaign had not had time to affect last year's figures. The choice of Empire wines has been greatly increased lately, and no doubt the hon. Member will be much better pleased with this year's figures.

I drink nothing but pure Empire beverages.

Trade And Commerce

China Clay (French Import Quota)

67.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of the French Republic with a view to securing the exemption of English china clay from the import quota on china clay which it is proposing to introduce?

It has not been considered that general representations against the restriction by quota of this or of other commodities would serve a useful purpose, but I should, of course, be ready to consider representations if the quotas proposed were such as to amount to discrimination against this country. I understand that the question of the amount of the quota is forming the subject of discussion between the English and French producers of china clay.

Abnormal Importations Duty (Rubber Shoes)

68.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the North British Rubber Company, Limited, is closing down its rubber-shoe factory as a result of Japanese competition; and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to make an order in respect of rubber shoes under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

I have received a report of the closing of this factory. I cannot anticipate the contents of any future Order that may be made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, but I may remind my hon. Friend that Parliament has entrusted the Import Duties Advisory Committee with the task of making recommendations as to the charging of additional duties on such goods as are here in question.

Food Council

69.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how often the Food Council have met since last October, giving the decisions which have been reached in the period and the name of the present chairman?

Since September the Board of Trade have had the responsibility for the prevention of the exploitation of the present financial situation in respect of foodstuffs under the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act. The Food Council continue to exercise their usual functions and a special committee appointed by them is conducting inquiry into London bread prices. A chairman will shortly be named in succession to Sir Allan Powell who has vacated the post on his appointment to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer the Food Council to the extraordinary jump in the price of tomatoes?

Liberia

70.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that witnesses in Liberia who gave evidence before the League of Nations Commission which visited that country are being victimised as a result; and what action the League Council propose to take in the matter?

The allegations to which my hon. Friend refers were brought to the notice of the Liberian representative at the meeting of the Council of the League on the 6th February; they were also, in part, the cause of the representations made by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Monrovia on the 7th March to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend on the 10th March. They have been denied by the Liberian. Government. My right hon. Friend will continue to communicate to the Liberia Committee of the Council of the League any information on this subject, which may reach him. I cannot, of course, foretell what further action the League Council may take.

Maidstone Prison

20.

(for Captain HAROLD BALFOUR) asked the Home Secretary if his Department can now find use for the whole of Maidstone Prison; and if any request from the Kent County Council to be relieved of their undertaking to purchase this building will have the sympathetic consideration of the Home Office?

So far as my Department is concerned the position remains as explained in the reply which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Chislehurst Division on the 3rd March. If any further representations are made by the Kent County Council, they would of course receive careful and sympathetic consideration.

Conferences, Ottawa, Lausanne And Geneva (Delegations)

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he has anything to announce regarding the representation of His Majesty's Government at the Conferences of Lausanne and Ottawa?

His Majesty's Government have to be represented practically simultaneously at three most important conferences this summer—the Disarmament Conference at Geneva, the Conference at Lausanne opening in June, and the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa beginning in July. The House will appreciate the difficulties of securing for these conferences the attendance of Ministers whose Departments are concerned in the business to be done together with others who would obviously be of the greatest assistance; and any announcement I can now make must depend upon what imperative claims are made upon Ministers.

The selection for Geneva is known. To Lausanne will go:

Myself,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

The President of the Board of Trade,

and should it be found to be advisable and possible the services of one or other of the following Ministers will be enlisted:

The Secretary of State for the Home Department,

The Secretary of State for India,

The Minister of Health,

and a representative of the Dominions Office.

The Ottawa representation will be:

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs,

The Secretary of State for the Colonies, The President of the Board of Trade, a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture,

and, subject to the conditions already mentioned, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for War.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Minister of Labour is left out?

That enables me to say that we shall be able to use the services of the Minister of Labour in a miscellaneous way during the absence' of his colleagues.

Is not the truth this, that the kindly temperament of the Minister of Labour has saved him from quarrelling in the Cabinet for a place?

May I say in order to allay apprehension and reports that there was never even the shadow of a quarrel in the Cabinet on this matter.

Like the secret meetings of the Labour party.

May I ask whether, in view of the profound importance to the future of the Empire of the conference at Ottawa, the Prime Minister will consider the desirability, if at all possible, of sending the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

He is going.

China And Japan

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House as to the steps which have been taken at Shanghai to carry out the proposals contained in the recommendations of the League of Nations?

The House is aware that on the 11th of March the special Assembly of the League of Nations adopted without dissent a resolution which, besides laying down the principles which must govern the attitude of the League of Nations to the Far Eastern dispute, set up a committee of 19 members, presided over by M. Hymans, the President of the Assembly, to act on behalf of and under the supervision of the Assembly in the matter. The first step, of course, is to endeavour to make completely effective the cessation of hostilities at Shanghai. The reports which have been received indicate that, apart from a little skirmishing which has practically, if not entirely, ceased, the cessation of hostilities has, in effect, been achieved.

As regards the negotiations which were contemplated as the next step, the Assembly Committee met yesterday, and I understand that it had before it the information that negotiations for this purpose were in actual progress at Shanghai. The Chinese and Japanese representatives there have been meeting during the last day or two, on the invitation of Sir Miles Lampson, with him and the representatives of Italy, France and the United States. My information is that these conversations made some hopeful progress, though they have also indicated some difficulties. The Assembly Committee is meeting again, I believe, to-day, and I sincerely hope that, with the help of the good offices of the representatives of the four Powers a definite result may be achieved and announced very shortly. At the moment, however, it is impossible to speak with complete confidence as to this, and I am sure that the House will agree that it would be very undesirable to prejudice the chance of final agreement by a further statement to-day on points of controversy.

Business Of The House

Will the Prime Minister kindly tell us the business for next week?

Monday, the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Wheat Bill.

Tuesday: The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, when I understand the subjects to be raised will be Shanghai and Manchuria, together with the Disarmament Conference at Geneva.

Wednesday: The remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, and I understand that the first question to be raised is unemployment.

Thursday: The Motion for the Easter Adjournment until 5th April.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken, including the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill and the Tanganyika and British Honduras Loans Bill, which it is necessary to pass into law before we adjourn. I shall propose that the House shall meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock so as to rise in the afternoon.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister has considered the question of rents, and how it is to be dealt with?

I am not yet in a position to make a statement in regard to that matter. There are several Bills with which we have to deal, and I cannot say yet when we shall be able to deal with the question of rent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what business will be taken on the day when the House resumes after the Easter Adjournment?

I cannot say at the moment, but, if the right hon. Gentleman will put a question to me at the beginning of next week, I may be able to give him an answer.

Does the Prime Minister propose to ask the. House to sit late to-night?

No. We have made quite good progress with the Wheat Bill, and, if the same rate is continued to-day, I do not propose to ask the House to sit late.

Motion made, and Question put:

"That the Proceedings on the Wheat Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and 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, 311; Noes, 39.

Division No. 115.]	AYES.	[3.28 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Albery, Irving James	Everard, W. Lindsay	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Mabane, William
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Flint, Abraham John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	McConnell, Sir Joseph
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Fox, Sir Gifford	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Fredrick Wolfe	Ganzoni, Sir John	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Gibson, Charles Granville	McKeag, William
Atholl, Duchess of	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McKie, John Hamilton
Atkinson, Cyril	Glossop, C. W. H.	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McLean, Major Alan
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Goff, Sir Park	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Goldie, Noel B.	Maitland, Adam
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Bernays, Robert	Graves, Marjorie	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Martin, Thomas B.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Blindell, James	Grimston, R. V.	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Bossom, A. C.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Boulton, W. W.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Bracken, Brendan	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Mitcheson, G. G.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Briant, Frank	Hanley, Dennis A.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Harris, Sir Percy	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hartington, Marquess of	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hartland, George A.	Muirhead, Major A. J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Munro, Patrick
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Browne, Captain A. C.	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	North, Captain Edward T.
Carver, Major William H.	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Nunn, William
Castle Stewart, Earl	Hopkinson, Austin	O'Connor, Terence James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hornby, Frank	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cayzor, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Howard, Tom Forrest	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Palmer, Francis Noel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pearson, William G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Chotzner, Alfred James	Hurd, Percy A.	Petherick, M.
Christie, James Archibald	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Clarke, Frank	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Iveagh, Countess of	Pickering, Ernest H.
Colman, N. C. D.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C)	Pike, Cecil F.
Conant, R. J. E.	James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cook, Thomas A.	Janner, Barnett	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Cooke, Douglas	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Cooper, A. Duff	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Copeland, Ida	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cowan, D. M.	Ker, J. Campbell	Ramsden, E.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Kimball, Lawrence	Rea, Walter Russell
Cross, R, H.	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Crossley, A. C.	Knight, Holford	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Knox. Sir Alfred	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Davison, Sir William Henry	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Dickie, John P.	Law, Sir Alfred	Robinson, John Roland
Donner, P. W.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Drewe, Cedric	Leckie, J. A.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Rosbotham, S. T.
Duggan, Hubert John	Lees-Jones, John	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Leigh, Sir John	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Eden, Robert Anthony	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ednam, Viscount	Levy, Thomas	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Elmley, Viscount	Lewis, Oswald	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Salmon, Major Isidore
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Stones, James	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Storey, Samuel	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Savery, Samuel Servington	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Scone, Lord	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Dothwell)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Weymouth, Viscount
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	White, Henry Graham
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)	Summersby, Charles H.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Skelton, Archibald Noel	Sutcliffe, Harold	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.	Tate, Mavis Constance	Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)	Templeton, William P.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Smithers, Waldron	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Withers, Sir John James
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Soper, Richard	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Womersley, Walter James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Train, John	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	Sir George Penny and Captain
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Austin Hudson.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Price, Gabriel
Buchanan, George	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cape, Thomas	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hirst, George Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Charles	Leonard, William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Logan, David Gilbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Lunn, William	Mr. Groves and Mr. John.

Message From The Lords

That they have agreed to,—

Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Bill,

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Orders Of The Day

Wheat Bill

Further considered in Committee [ Progress, 16th March].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 3—(Quota Payments By Millers And Importers)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, after the word "that," to insert the words:

"a miller shall not be liable to make quota payments in respect of any hundredweight of his output which consists only of wheat meal delivered by him for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food, and."

Sub-section (1) of this Clause lays it down that every miller and every importer of flour shall make a quota payment to the Wheat Commission. The Clause provides for exemption in favour of the miller who satisfies the Wheat Commission that his output will be used solely for animal or poultry food. This type of miller is called a provender miller, and he will be entitled to a provender miller's certificate to exempt him from liability to quota payments. The object of the Amendment is simply to give to the small miller who mills flour, and is therefore now called upon to pay a quota premium, the same exemption as is given to the provender miller in respect of wheat meal for feeding animals or poultry. Under the Bill the provender miller, very rightly and properly, is permitted to mill wheat meal solely used for the feeding of animals or poultry, without involving him in the necessity of paying quota premiums. The small miller does a very considerable amount of business and undertakes a very fair amount of this kind of trade, and if this or a similar Amendment is not incorporated in the Bill, there seems to me to be a grave risk that the small miller will lose this wheat meal trade which he now does, to his profit and to the profit of his customers, altogether, and that it will pass from him to the provender miller. This will not be either right or fair to the small miller.

It may be urged by those who do not take this view that, if the Amendment were accepted, the Wheat Commission might be involved in the risk of loss of quota payments, but I do not think that in practice there will be any such loss, because if the Wheat Commission are not satisfied as to the bona fides of the small miller, they will naturally enough not grant him the provender miller's certificate of exemption. I would urge this Amendment on the sympathy of the Minister on the ground of justice as between one type of miller and another. It will be for the small miller to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Wheat Commission and that the wheat meal for which he is claiming exemption is in fact milled and delivered for this exempted purpose, and the Commission can only grant exemption certificates if and when satisfactory proof has been given to them that the wheat meal in question is sold, delivered, and used for this purpose, and for this purpose only.

I am in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, because it has never been the intention of the Government that the stock or poultry industry should be handicapped by the operation of this Bill. I observe that the Amendment is so drafted that it provides that the exemption from quota payments shall only apply to

"wheat meal delivered … for consumption without further manufacture as animal or poultry food."

With that also I am in agreement, but I would suggest to the Mover of the Amendment and those who support him that I might be allowed to look into the exact terms of the Amendment between now and the Report stage. I will undertake to accept the Amendment in principle, but I would like to be quite certain that the wording of it meets all the points. If my hon. Friend will accept that assurance, I will agree to bring it up on the Report stage myself.

When considering further exemptions, which are quite sincerely moved by the hon. Member and his Friends, I hope the Government will not forget that the larger the number of exemptions they make, whether for cattle food or otherwise, the bigger will be the burden on the human consumers.

I much appreciate the attitude of the Minister, and beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out Subsection (3).

Hon. Members opposite have frequently cast eyes at Members on these benches for wanting to give large concessions to foreigners and for wanting always to help every country but our own. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] Those cheers are very welcome, because on this occasion hon. Members opposite are not only conceding something to the foreigner, but doing it at the expense of the home consumer of food. This Sub-section means that all flour used for stores on ships, not only British ships, be it noticed, but foreign ships too, is to be exempt from quota payments. All flour used for export, for any purpose and to any country, is to be excused the quota payment, which implies, of course, a larger payment in the aggregate by the home consumer of bread. We have never claimed that the Bill is one that we can support in any form, but at least we think the right hon. Gentleman has missed his way in this respect, by subsidising not only British ships and shipowners but foreign ships and shipowners, by granting them relief from the quota payment, which increases the burden on the home consumer. If this quota payment has to be made by consumers of bread in this country, at least we ought not to exempt foreigners, whether shipowners or ordinary domestic consumers, and in order to get some sort of equity fur the British consumer of bread, we ask the right hon. Gentleman and the ultrapatriotic party for once to think about their own country and its people.

4.0 p.m.

Repayments of this character, of course, are usually made upon goods on which Customs and Excise duties are levied, and I think it is clear that it would not be proper that we should deny to British millers the possibility of competing abroad for the sale of flour, and depart from what is the general practice. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken talked about this trade being carried out in foreign ships by foreign shipowners. I do not know on what ground that assumption was made. However, the general principle remains, and, in the circumstances, I cannot make an exception in this case.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has really met the point. As I understand, a large quantity of this flour will be exported in the sense that it will be used as ships' stores. It is not a question of putting it on board ship for the purpose of using it as ships' stores. A very large quantity of flour which goes into the stores of foreign ships will have to he subsidised by the home consumer, because instead of bearing its share of the payment as it should do, it will bear no share, and, therefore, will increase the share which has got to be borne by the home consumer. It is really an infraction of the whole of the policy for which the right hon. Gentleman and his party are responsible to say that in this case not only is the foreigner not to have any tax put upon his flour, but he is actually to have a subsidy or benefit given to him for coming to this country to buy flour.

I really do not think that anything the right hon. Gentleman has said so far has given us any satisfactory explanation as to why this subsidy should not be paid by owners of ships or foreigners just as it is paid by any other consumer. It is not analogous to ordinary articles paying import duty. This is not a case of import duty, but a special form of subsidy paid by the consumer in this country. It is not a question of goods paying a tax on coming into the country and then having relief from the tax on going out of the country, so that they can be treated as never having passed through the country. This is a tax which originates in the country by way of a subsidy from the consumer, and there does not seem any reason why that tax should not be paid by people who consume the flour on the high seas in a British or foreign ship just as much as by those who consume it in a house in London. We do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has given any reason for a differentiation between the burden borne by people who consume the flour on land and those who consume it at sea.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'has' in line 20, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 43.

Division No. 116.]	AYES.	[4.4 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Glossop, C. W. H.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Albery, Irving James	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)	Goff, Sir Park	Mitchell. Harold P (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Goldie, Noel B.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe	Graves, Marjorie	Muirhead, Major A. J.
Atholl, Duchess of	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Munro, Patrick
Atkinson, Cyril	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Grimston, R. V.	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	North, Captain Edward T.
Bernays, Robert	Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)	Nunn, William
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Hanley, Dennis A.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Harris, Sir Percy	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)	Hartington, Marquess of	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Blindell, James	Hartland, George A.	Palmer, Francis Noel
Bossom, A. C.	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Pearson, William G.
Boulton, W. W.	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Petherick, M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Holdsworth, Herbert	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Pickering. Ernest H.
Briant, Frank	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Pike, Cecil F.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Hornby, Frank	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	Pybus, Percy John
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Buchan, John	Hurd, Percy A.	Ramsden, E.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Rea, Walter Russell
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Iveagh, Countess of	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Carver, Major William H.	Janner, Barnett	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Castle Stewart, Earl	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Robinson, John Roland
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Ker, J. Campbell	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Kimball, Lawrence	Rosbotham, S. T.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Chotzner, Alfred James	Knox, Sir Alfred	Runge, Norah Cecil
Clarke, Frank	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Colman, N. C. D.	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Russell. Richard John (Eddisbury)
Conant, R. J. E.	Law, Sir Alfred	Salmon, Major Isidore
Cook, Thomas A.	Leckie, J. A.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Cooke, Douglas	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Copeland, Ida	Lees-Jones, John	Savery, Samuel Servington
Cowan, D. M.	Leigh, Sir John	Scone, Lord
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cross, R. H.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Crossley, A. C.	Levy, Thomas	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Lewis, Oswald	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Davison, Sir William Henry	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dickie, John P.	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Donner, P. W.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Smithers, Waldron
Drewe, Cedric	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Duggan, Hubert John	Mabane, William	Soper, Richard
Eden, Robert Anthony	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Edge, Sir William	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Elmley, Viscount	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	McKie, John Hamilton	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	McLean, Major Alan	Stones, James
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Storey, Samuel
Everard, W. Lindsay	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Strauss, Edward A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Flint, Abraham John	Maitland, Adam	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Fox, Sir Gifford	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Summersby, Charles H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Sutcliffe, Harold
Gibson, Charles Granville	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Tate, Mavis Constance

Templeton, William P.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Withers, Sir John James
Thomas, James P. L. (Herelord)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.	Womersley, Walter James
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Thornton, Sir Frederick Charles	Weymouth, Viscount	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.	Wragg, Herbert
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Train, John	Wills, Wilfrid D.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)	Sir George Penny and Major
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George	George Davies.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Groves, Thomas E.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Batey, Joseph	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hall, F. (York, W. R., Narmanton)	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Buchanan, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas	Hirst, George Henry	Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Thorne, William James
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, Charles	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lunn, William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

Mr. David Reid!

Are we to understand that the next two Amendments will be discussed together?

The Amendment which I have just called—in page 6, line 20, after the second word "flour," to insert the words "or bread baked therefrom"—is a selected Amendment, and is more or less in principle the same as the next one—in page 6, line 20, to leave out the word "has," and to insert instead thereof the words "or any articles manufactured from it have." I do not propose to take that Amendment, but in the discussion which takes place on the first Amendment questions can be raised which could be raised on the second Amendment.

Perhaps you will allow a Division on the second Amendment without discussion, because it does raise another matter, namely, the question of biscuits, which is not covered by the first Amendment.

My final decision must await the fate of the Amendment I have just called, but it may be that I shall think it proper to allow a Division on the next Amendment, in which case I will do so.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, after the second word "flour," to insert the words "or bread baked therefrom."

The object of the Sub-section which we discussed on the last Amendment is to allow a drawback in respect of any flour exported or shipped as stores. The object of this Amendment is to extend the relief payment to bread that is baked within the United Kingdom from flour that has paid the quota, and is exported. The question with regard to the position in Northern Ireland arises. In Ireland the local baker is almost extinct, and nearly all household bread is baked in large machine bakeries in the large towns, and the districts where it is sold are not confined by the border-line. There are large machine bakeries in Londonderry which distribute bread in parts of the Free State, to Donegal, Sligo, and other places, even going as far as Roscommon. The bakers in Londonderry come in competition with the bakers in Dublin and other towns in the Free State. If the Clause is not amended in the way suggested, they will be at a disadvantage in competing with the Free State bakers, because they will have to use flour which has paid the quota levy, and the Free State baker will be free from that imposition and will have his flour cheaper. There seems to be nothing illogical, if you allow a drawback on flour which is exported, in extending that to bread which is exported.

I can understand that if this exemption were extended to cover any large range of subjects, it might become administratively impossible, but we have limited our Amendment simply to bread. In Northern Ireland no millable wheat is grown, and therefore all the flour that is used for making bread is milled either inside the province or has been brought in subjected to the quota levy. At the present time, returns are furnished to the Customs of the bread sent over the border, so that there already exists the necessary returns for the purpose of estimating what the payments should lie. It is easy enough to ascertain what is the average amount of flour contained in a loaf, or, to put it the other way, how many loaves go to a certain weight of flour. We have, therefore, all the three necessary items that help in the administration. This is an important question to us, because the number of 2-lb. loaves exported each year over the border is 13,000,000, and the trade is worth about £200,000 a year. If that trade goes, it will cause a great deal of unemployment. We are trying by this Amendment to conserve employment in the United Kingdom, and I hope, therefore, that we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite.

I want to direct my remarks to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall)—in line 20, to leave out the word "has," and to insert instead thereof the words "or any articles manufactured from it have"—which I understand from your Ruling must be discussed now. I am anxious that the Minister should agree to this Amendment in order to safeguard our export trade in biscuits. This country has an important trade in biscuits. In 1927, the total value of exports of that commodity amounted to £1,344,000. During the last two or three years the trade has dropped severely, principally owing to the general trade stringency throughout the world. Even so, last year we exported about £800,000 worth. That drop alone, I am informed by several big manufacturers, has resulted in putting out of employment between 2,000 and 3,000 people. If we lose the biscuit export trade, which we may unless the drawback is allowed, it will mean throwing out of work another 4,000 persons or more. Our biscuit manufacturers have to face extraordinarily fierce competition all over the world, our chief competitors being France, Germany, and Switzerland, but, in spite of the fact that French and German biscuits are baked from flour which is heavily subsidised, we are able to hold our own in a considerable number of countries.

I have eaten biscuits made in my own borough in every country in Europe, and other hon. Members have probably had the same experience. Last year I travelled 1,000 miles down the Volga, and on the Russian state boats no biscuits but English were suppled. Huntley and Palmer's, Carr's and Peek Frean's biscuits were on the same boat; there were no other biscuits at all. I am told that the competition with German-made biscuits, and to a less extent with Swiss-made biscuits, is so fierce that a difference of a farthing a lb. will decide whether our people get a contract with some native trader on the coast of Africa or elsewhere. I understand that the biscuit people feel that this levy will mean a serious handicap to them; in fact, it will mean, as far as some of our biscuits are concerned, that we shall be knocked out completely in the struggle. That fact will be reflected in a loss of employment to some 3,000 or 4,000 persons. In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment or some form of words suitable to him. The loss of the export biscuit trade would be a serious matter, and there can be no doubt that it will be gravely jeopardised unless some drawback is allowed.

I am pleased to learn that we are discovering the imperfections of this Bill. Ireland is a very small country, but we are now being asked to give protection to one part of it against another part. We know that these tariffs are to be imposed by Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are on the wrong Bill!"] But the object of the Amendment is to give the same protection to Northern Ireland as is being given to the farmers in Great Britain. That will be the inevitable result of the Amendment. Now that de Valera has the opportunity, you may find yourselves in great difficulties over these financial proposals. What does the hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) mean by his Amendment? Will it mean an increase in the price of the loaf? I appreciate that the hon. Member wants protection but what effect will it have on the workers in the South of Ireland? I know that the farmers want it; they think they are going to live by taking in one another's washing, but they cannot do it. It will mean an increase in the cost of living to the great mass of people in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. You have the people round your necks and in your power, and you want to force them down into worse conditions than they have been in before. This Amendment means that hon. Members opposite want to keep the barrier between North and South. They are trying to use this protectionist policy to prevent the two parts of Ireland joining again. They would come together if it were not for the political opinions and economic power of the people on the other side of the border. There ought to be no border. Ireland is one country and one people—[Interruption.] I know that you can laugh at me—

Perhaps the hon. Member had better recollect the Rules of the House, and address his remarks to the Chair.

4.30 p.m.

I will address my remarks to the Chair, particularly on such an occasion as this. I appreciate all the kindness you show me, and I have every confidence in your good rulings and will accept all your decisions with good grace —although I am not much of a grace. The people trying to create a barrier between the north of Ireland and the south of Ireland are not what they say they are when they are on public platforms. Then they want to unite the Empire, they say the whole Empire ought to be one body, and they will do their best to help it to become one body, but when it comes to the case of Ireland they want to create divisions between Waterford and Dublin, between Dundalk and Tipperary.

Does not the south of Ireland want to go out of the Empire?

The Free State does not want to go out. The Free State will come in to-morrow, if you like—in fact, the Free State has come in. Mr. De Valera is not the boss in Ireland now. There are nine Labour members there —[interruption.] Yes, just as there are Labour Members here, but those nine Labour members in southern Ireland have greater power than we have here.

I am sorry the hon. Member should have been led astray from the Amendment by an interruption which was also irrelevant.

I am used to interruptions and interrogations. I only want to say that the Labour party are going to save Britain over this question of Ireland, because we are not going to accept the policy laid down by certain elements in Ireland. We are going to stand by the Treaty, by the Constitution which was agreed upon by the representatives of Ireland in other days; and when the people have the right to decide they will give their verdict. All I got up to say—because I have no right to get up, but only to get down—is that I am very sorry to find an Irish Member of this House trying to create a barrier between the North and the South in Ireland—putting up barriers and tariffs against different, sections in a country which has a population less than that of London.

On a point of Order. May we all join in this general Irish Debate?

No, certainly not.

It is not an Irish Debate, but I want to raise the question as it affects us. Northern Ireland claims to be part of Great Britain, and it is, and I do not object to that claim. I would like to see the whole of the British Empire part of one great confraternity of peoples. I have never hidden my opinions on that subject. But when we come to a country with a population of less than 4,000,000, and find one-fourth of that country claiming to erect barriers against the other three-fourths I say it is not playing the game. One section of the people there are taking advantage of the Bill as against the rest, and that is simply asking for trouble. Before many months are over we shall have this matter debated in this House. We cannot get away from the results of the late election in Southern Ireland.

I think the hon. Member had better reserve that part of his speech for the future occasion to which he refers.

I am always looking for futures, although I am not interested in the Stock Exchange. I say frankly that when people in the northern part of Ire- land who trade across the border claim privileges as against the people on the other side of the border they are asking for trouble, and I hope the House of Commons will think twice before agreeing to give those privileges.

The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has raised the problem of the export of bread from Northern Ireland to the Irish Free State. It is a problem which has been brought to my notice,, and I say at once that I recognise that it is one of great importance to Northern Ireland. The value of that trade in the export of bread is something like £200,000 per annum, and it would appear that considerable damage may be done to that trade if no solution of the difficulty can be found. I can assure him that the Government have no desire to cause any injury to so important a trade in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland will appreciate that in the matter of the quota they are in much the same position as the people in many parts of England, Wales and Scotland where very little wheat is grown. It is a question which requires very careful consideration, and I would like to consider the case of exported bread only and try to find suitable phraseology before the Report stage is reached to deal with this problem.

The other matter brought up by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), which is raised in a subsequent Amendment, presents quite another problem. He is asking that this concession should be extended to other products manufactured from flour. A very large number of products manufactured from flour are exported, including, in addition to bread, biscuits, meat pastes, sausages, bill-posting paste, dog-biscuits, poultry foods and pork pies. I understand the hon. Member for West Bermondsey is claiming this concession on behalf of the biscuit exporters, but the Amendment is drawn in very wide terms, and the Wheat Commission would be involved in a great deal of administrative work in checking the exports of articles containing flour and calculating the amount of quota payments due to be refunded in respect of flour contained in those articles. The main point for hon. Members to have in mind when deciding this problem is whether, in fact, the disadvantage to the biscuit trade is really so serious as has been stated.

It would be advantageous if I were to state a few of the facts about the export of biscuits. The average export of biscuits from the United Kingdom each year from 1926 to 1930 was 9,500 tons, of an average value of £1,175,000. That gives an average value of £123 per ton. If we assume that these biscuits contain on an average 75 per cent. of flour the cost of the flour in a ton of biscuits is, at the present time, somewhere between £6 and £7. With this raw material the biscuit maker manufactures a product which has been exported in recent years at the price of £123 per ton. It is obvious, therefore, that the cost of the flour is comparatively insignificant compared with the wholesale price of the biscuits. If a quota payment of 2s. 6d. per sack should be required from millers and importers of flour, the additional charge borne by the flour used by the biscuit makers would not amount to more than 15s. per ton of biscuits, only.6 per cent. of the export value of the biscuits. In the face of such facts I think it cannot be seriously maintained that the quota payment is going to prejudice the biscuit makers to any extent, and in these circumstances I shall be unable to accept the Amendment dealing with biscuits.

We are very much disappointed with the reply of the Minister. We cannot see that his offer to consider the position as far as bread exported from Northern Ireland is concerned is consistent with his decision about biscuits, having regard to the fact that the value of the bread exported from Northern Ireland is about £200,000 per annum and the value of the export trade in biscuits from this country has been well over £1,000,000 a year during the last four years. It is true that the quota payment would not increase the cost by any large amount, but we must remember that two-thirds of the biscuits exported are sent to foreign countries outside the Dominions and Colonies, and the slightest increase in price must have a considerable effect upon the trade in these days of very severe competition. We cannot see the consistency of the action he has taken, and we ask him to be as generous to the biscuit exporters of this country as he is to the bread exporters of Northern Ireland. We do not say that we do not agree with the concession which has been granted to Northern Ireland, because we think it is a right and proper one, but we say that at the same time that he reconsiders the position as to the export of bread from Northern Ireland he ought to reconsider his attitude regarding the export of flour products from this country, especially biscuits. Otherwise, this legislation will have a serious effect upon all those engaged in the biscuit industry. I hope the Minister will decide that biscuits, in particular, shall receive this concession.

In view of what the Minister has said, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

rose—

Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if an hon. Member insists on speaking after leave to withdraw an Amendment has been asked for, leave is refused. May I suggest to the Committee that they give leave to the hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid) to withdraw this Amendment? I might then call the next Amendment, on which the discussion could be continued.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out the word "has," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"or any articles manufactured from it have."

I confess that I am rather impressed with the case made for biscuits. I do not expect or hope that the Minister can give any different opinion now, but I feel rather strongly that the proposal ought to be considered. There are two strong arguments in favour Of some extension. I do not say that we can go as far as the proposal of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter), but the biscuit trade does seem to me to be in rather a special position. It is a very old-established British trade, British biscuits are known all over the world and the names of the makers are household words. I do not want to discourage a trade of that sort. I want to encourage the export trade even in the case of exports of the comparatively small value of £1,000,000. I want to encourage all exports. Then there is the question of employment. The Minister knows that the biscuit trade is localised; it is not spread about all over the country. Huntley and Palmer's works are situated at Reading, and Carr's biscuit works are situated at Carlisle, and so any effect on employment would be centralised on a district and might fall with excessive severity on one particular part of the country. It is rather difficult to hold a line of argument which admits the justice of exported bread being given this rebate and exported biscuits being excluded. On all grounds I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider the matter before the Report stage.

There is one other aspect of the matter. All inquiries show that very little English wheat is used in the flour that is made into bread, but English flour is used in the making of biscuits. From the point of view of the English farmer, therefore, the very thing that should be helped is the English biscuit, especially as in times like these we want to stimulate the export trade. I hope that if the Minister cannot accept this Amendment now, he will give an undertaking to reconsider the whole position before the Report stage.

We shall be willing, of course, to have this proposal limited to biscuits, and we say that, not because the biscuit trade particularly wants it, but because we are very anxious to do everything we can to foster the export trade of the country. The Minister's figures, which may seem small as regards the way in which this tax will fall on the biscuit maker, may also be looked at from another point of view. If the sum is so email is it worth the inconvenience of charging it on the biscuit maker? We are told that it represents 15s. a ton on the flour used in the making of the biscuits. It will mean only about £7,000 year. On those figures is it worth while risking the putting of this extra block on the export of biscuits? I ask the Minister at least to promise us that he will seriously consider the matter again before the Report stage.

I, of course, am always ready to look into what I admit are rather difficult technical problems. I should be wrong if I made the hon. and learned Gentleman think that I would take the course that he has suggested, but I will again look very carefully into the matter.

I am much obliged. We shall have an opportunity of bringing the matter up again if the right hon. Gentleman can do nothing. Meantime perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, after the word "delivered," to insert the words:

"(otherwise than by millers holding provender millers' certificates)."

This Amendment rectifies an omission. It is intended to ensure that the Minister's estimate of the supply of flour is correctly based on the quantity that will be actually chargeable to payment, and will exclude the quantity that will not be so chargeable.

I wish to ask the Minister whether, in view of the promise which I think he made regarding wheat that is milled for 'food for animal purposes, this will not now have to be adapted to meet that fresh alteration.

I think that these words are essential.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I think the Minister ought to be reminded once again of the masterpiece of camouflage in Subsection (1). I want to draw attention to two particular phrases which no one can quite justify or understand. We think that the purpose in view could have been achieved by much simpler language. I was rather interested to hear the Minister promise an hon. Member that he would provide an explanatory statement to the farmers so that they could understand what he means by the Bill, and particularly by this Clause. On line 33 the Minister persists in preserving the term:

"Quota of home-grown millable wheat."

That is a suggestion to the outside world that all bread will contain a proportion of home-grown wheat. But the old quota system is "dead and damned" apparently, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day of Free Trade. Why these words should be preserved is rather a mystery. We would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman did not come straight to the point and tell the industry and the nation exactly what he meant without using such words as these:

"A sum equal to what would have been the price deficit in respect of the quota of home-grown millable wheat which would have been used in the production of that hundredweight."

The right hon. Gentleman knows that scarcely a grain of home-grown wheat will be used in that hundredweight. In line 37 he uses the words:

"For the cereal year in which that hundredweight was delivered had been used."

Again he uses a term knowing full well that the home-grown Wheat would not be used in any part of the transaction. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by Sub-sections (5) (6) and (7)? One Noble Lord said in another place some time ago that a certain Bill was, "legislation by reference gone mad." I think that these three Sub-sections are legislation by anticipation and estimation and prescription and calculation gone mad. If the right hon. Gentleman understands how it is all going to work out he has perhaps the clearest mind of any person resident in this or any other country. Sub-section (6) states:

"Any order made under this section shall state the estimated price deficit., the anticipated supply of home-grown millable wheat, and the estimated supply of flour upon the basis of which the amount prescribed by the order is calculated."

It seems to me that quite a number of prescriptions and calculations and anticipations are necessary if the Bill is to be workable at all. What the average farmer will think about these words when he picks up the Wheat Act in a few weeks time I really do not know. I am anticipating that as a result of Clause 3 there may be more work for bricklayers carpenters and building operatives generally, for I anticipate—it is my turn to anticipate now—that we shall have more madmen and that more facilities will have to be provided in asylums than ever before. However, it is the right hon. Gentleman's choice of words, and we cannot congratulate him upon them. We would be happy if he would clarify our minds on the subject.

T. do not think that this Clause need concern the farmers very much, though I agree that the miller and the flour importer have to understand it. Reference has been

Division No 117.]	AYES.	[5.1 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Drewe, Cedric	Leckie, J. A.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Leech, Dr. J. W.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Duggan, Hubert John	Lees-Jones, John
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Eden, Robert Anthony	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Elmley, Viscount	Lewis, Oswald
Aske, Sir Robert William	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Llewellin, Major John J.
Atholl, Duchess of	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lloyd, Geoffrey
Atkinson, Cyril	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Everard, W. Lindsay	Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Fox, Sir Gifford	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Fuller, Captain A. G.	Mabane, William
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)	Ganzoni, Sir John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Bernays, Robert	Gibson, Charles Granville	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Belterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McKie, John Hamilton
Borodale, Viscount	Glossop, C. W. H.	McLean, Major Alan
Boulton, W. W.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Boyce, H. Leslie	Goff, Sir Park	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Goldie, Noel B.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Goodman. Colonel Albert W.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Broadbent, Colonel John	Gower, Sir Robert	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Graves, Marjorie	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Brown. Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)	Grimston, R. V.	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Muirhead, Major A. J.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Munro, Patrick
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Hanley, Dennis A.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Carver, Major William H.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Castle Stewart, Earl	Hartland, George A	North, Captain Edward T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Nunn, William
Cayrer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Pearson, William G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Peat, Charles U.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Penny, Sir George
Chotzner, Alfred James	Hornby, Frank	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Christie, James Archibald	Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Rober S.	Petherick, M.
Clarke, Frank	Howard, Tom Forrest	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Clarry, Reginald George	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	pike, Cecil F.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hunter, Dr. Joseph {Dumfries)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Colman, N. C. D.	Hurd, Percy A.	Power, Sir John Cecil
Colville, John	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Pybus, Percy John
Conant, R. J. E.	Iveagh, Countess of	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Cook, Thomas A.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Cooke, Douglas	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cooper, A. Duff	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Ramsden, E.
Cowan, D. M.	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Ker, J. Campbell	Rea, Walter Russell
Craven-Ellis, William	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Crossley, A. C.	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Knight, Holford	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Davies. Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)	Knox. Sir Alfred	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Davison, Sir William Henry	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Dickie, John P.	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Rosbotham, S. T.
Donner, P. W.	Law, Sir Alfred	Ross, Ronald D.
Doran, Edward	Law, Richard K. (Hull. S.W.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

made to the use of the word "quota." It is used here as the quota of the anticipated supply, of the 6,000,000 qrs. The calculation which has to be made will have to be made on the basis of the anticipated supply.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 46.

Rothschild, James A. de	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Soper, Richard	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Runge, Norah Cecil	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Stones, James	Weymouth, Viscount
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Storey, Samuel	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Stourton, Hon. John J.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Savery, Samuel Servington	Strauss, Edward A.	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Scone, Lord	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Selley, Harry R.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Templeton, William P.	Withers, Sir John James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Womersley, Walter James
Skelton, Archibald Noel	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Wragg, Herbert
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Train, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smithers, Waldron	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Somervell, Donald Bradley	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon	and Lord Erskine.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Batey, Joseph	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Briant, Frank	Groves, Thomas E.	Parkinson. John Allen
Buchanan, George	Grundy, Thomas W.	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Thorne, William James
Cove, William G.	Hirst, George Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Holdsworth, Herbert	Wallhead, Richard C.
Daggar, George	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Lawson, John James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Leonard, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Logan, David Gilbert	Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Lunn, William	John.

Clause 4—(By-Laws Of The Wheat Commission)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:

(b) for prescribing the form of the contract (in this section referred to as "the prescribed form of contract") between registered growers of home-grown millable wheat and purchasers of such wheat which shall be used in the case of all sales of such wheat, such contract to be in the form set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act subject to such modifications, additions, and omissions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as the Wheat Commissioners may from time by by-law provide, and for the transmission to the Wheat Commission by the registered grower or the purchaser forthwith after the completion of any such contract or a true copy thereof.

My hon. Friends and I who are putting forward this Amendment thought it was necessary to have some form of contract so that the farmer will understand exactly what he is doing when he is selling his wheat. It is important that the form of contract should be more or less uniform all over the country. I appreciate that there should be a certain amount of elasticity for which the Wheat Commission should make by-laws, but at the same time both buyer and seller want to know that the same sort of contracts are being carried out in different parts of the country, and, if this Amendment is agreed to, farmers will be able to see from the form of contract that this is being done. The object of my proposal is to simplify the procedure. The form of contract would be in triplicate. The buyer would sign one copy and he would hand two copies to the seller. The procedure would be simplified, because the farmer, after signing his copy of the contract, would take the contract to his bank together with his certificate, on which the banker would be able to give him such advance as he might require. Paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) enables payments in advance to be made to registered growers, and the form of contract I am suggesting will make the procedure very much easier. Paragraph (g) of the same Sub-section requires registered growers to keep records and furnish returns. That would all be provided for in the contract. The form of contract I suggest would very much simplify the procedure from the sellers' and the buyers' point of view. In this way all the records could be noted and they would be understood by the farmer. Something of the kind which I am suggesting would not only produce more uniformity, but it would very much simplify the transactions between buyer and seller.

I agree with the Mover of this Amendment that cases may arise in which something of this kind is required, but I think it is unwise to put it in a definite form such as is suggested, because this is just the kind of work which the Wheat Commission, with their technical experience and knowledge, will be best able to deal with if and when it is required. I am bound to say, further, that no representation on this point has reached me from either the growers or the purchasers of wheat in this country, but I think it is perhaps well that the matter has been ventilated. We shall take careful note of it, but I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it has bean moved.

I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend, and am glad to hear that he will be kind enough to consider the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, after the word "enabling," to insert the words:

"subject to recovery in whole or in part."

The object of this Amendment will be clear to the right hon. Gentleman. It is that, if a payment has been made under Clause 4 (2, b), and that payment is proved later in the cereal year to be in excess of what the registered grower was entitled to receive, the right hon. Gentleman should be enabled to recover any overpayment that may have been made. I imagine that but for some oversight some such words will have been put into the Bill originally.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment is intended to provide for the possibility of the Wheat Commission making advances to registered growers during the cereal year of sums larger than the deficiency payment. That is quite a proper provision to make, but I am advised that it can be dealt with adequately in the by-laws of the Wheat Commission, which, of course, would have to be made with the approval of the Minister. That is the reason why I have not put it into the Bill, and I think that in the circumstances the Amendment is really unnecessary.

Seeing that the Wheat Commission will consist of persons Who, after all, are interested in the deficiency payments, and so forth, would it not be preferable, instead of leaving the question to be dealt with by them in regulations which they themselves may make subsequently, even though they must be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, to embody these four or five words in the Bill, so that there would be no uncertainty? Could the right hon. Gentleman, between now and Report, reconsider whether these words ought to be embodied in the Bill?

It is clear that the Minister will have control over this matter. I am, of course, ready to look into the details between now and Report.

In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, after the word "to," to insert the word "individual."

This Amendment only asks that individual growers may receive the interim payment referred to in Clause 4 (2, b). Arrangements are made for registered growers to receive a sum on account, and the Amendment is merely designed to permit each individual registered grower to receive any sum on account that may be available, following the regulations that have been made. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of accepting this Amendment, so that no complications may follow.

I really think that this Amendment is unnecessary. Under the Sub-section, no registered grower will be entitled to a payment in advance otherwise than in respect of wheat that has actually been sold by him, and he is the individual to whom the deficiency payment will become due. The Sub-section, clearly, does not enable the Wheat Commission to make advances to growers who have not sold wheat which entitles them to the deficiency payment. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, after the word "wheat," to insert the words:

"or of his agent."

This Amendment is designed to meet the case of a buyer of wheat whose name is not known to the registered grower, because he has purchased his wheat through an agent. This would permit of the agent's name being stated on the wheat certificate, and enable a satisfactory trace to be kept of the transaction.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the term "agent" would include a co-operative society?

Yes, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.

May I ask, Sir Dennis, whether you are not calling my Amendment, which precedes that of the hon. and gallant Member—In page 8, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:

"and of the yield per acre of the land under wheat."

We regard that Amendment as one of considerable importance.

I am not selecting that Amendment.

We should, of course, hesitate to disagree with your Ruling, but we regard this piece of information, which we propose that registered growers should be invited to keep, as vital, and we thought that perhaps, having that fact in mind, you might have deemed it advisable to select this Amendment. We think that this information would be invaluable to the committee that is likely to be set up under Clause 2 (2), when they come to review the economic conditions of the industry and matters relating thereto. Unless they have this information, we fear that they will be unable to carry out their duties.

It would be unwise on my part to indicate the reasons why I did not select the hon. Member's Amendment, but, as the Committee has made very good progress, I shall be glad to allow the hon. Member to say why he considers that his Amendment should be selected. I will, therefore, call upon him to move it.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 43, at the end, to insert the words:

"and of the yield per acre of the land under wheat."

Under Clause 4 (2, g), records must be kept by registered growers, and when required they must furnish returns, of all wheat bought and sold by them, and of the price at which it is bought or sold. This Amendment proposes to provide that the record shall include, in addition, the yield per acre of the land under wheat. Our reason for thinking that this Amendment might be accepted is that, when the committee which is to be set up under Clause 2 (2) is invited to examine the economic conditions of the industry, with a view, it may be, to increasing the standard price, or decreasing the standard price, or leaving it at the same figure for a further period, the committee ought to be in a position to examine what has transpired during the period of three years with regard to the productivity of the wheat-growing areas.

The explanatory Memorandum states that one of the objects of the Bill is to discourage the extension of wheat cultivation on land that is unsuitable for the crop. Unless the committee have certain information with regard to the yield per acre, we feel that they will be working more or less in the dark, and the Minister, when he is called upon to accept or reject any recommendation of the committee, will also be in doubt as to whether there has been an extension of wheat growing on unsuitable land. If registered growers are invited to provide information as to the yield per acre of land under wheat, the committee, having this information, would be in a position to recommend either an alteration or a continuance of the standard price. For these reasons we think that this Amendment might very well be accepted.

5.30 p.m.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that the fullest records shall be kept, but it is inadvisable to be too definite about this in the Bill. Of course, these paragraphs indicate the minimum of records which must be kept in order that the Wheat Commission shall have at its disposal all the information necessary to carry out its statutory duties, but it is unnecessary to put in a great many details. The Wheat Commission will seek from registered growers from time to time, no doubt, a great variety of information, and it is very undesirable that we should be too definite in attempting to limit them. I appreciate that it is desirable that there should be a record kept, and I think there can be no doubt that, in fact, that record will be kept.

I do not think we are entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. We understood that this was a scheme that was to operate for a given period, after which the country would be in a position to make a definite examination of its effects. After the discussion on the previous Clause, it is imperative that this detailed information should be assured so that at the end of the period the country can form a judgment an to the future of wheat growing. Eminent agriculturists in the House, apart from a number of us who have given some consideration to the matter, have definitely come to the conclusion that wheat growing, except for our own use for stock feeding, is a thing of the past. The country is being called upon to give nearly £6,000,000 per annum, and we ought to know at the end of the period what purpose it has served and whether certain wheat growing districts can continue with any success or not. This money is going to be found by very poor people, and the country has a right to know at the end of the period what has happened in every particular detail. The Minister does not deny that all the information that we can get ought to be given. Then why not insert these few words, so that the country would, at the end of the three years, be in possession of the whole of the facts. Without the information we shall be unable to judge as to the possibility of growing wheat here and discontinuing it there, and I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

I hope and believe that, under the terms of this Clause, the Wheat Commission will be vested with all the necessary and proper powers to discharge their duties and, therefore, I support the Minister in his opposition to the Amendment. It would be a great mistake to overload the Bill with precise details as to the manner in which the Wheat Commission shall carry out its functions and, the more machinery we incorporate in the Bill, the greater will be the cost of its working. Moreover, the practical value of the information to be obtained will be almost negligible. On these grounds, I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

There is another reason that I should like to give. This would undoubtedly necessitate the appointment of a good many inspectors.

Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

resumed the Chair.

Royal Assent

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having re turned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Act, 1932.

2. Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Act, 1932.

3. Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932.

4. Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932.

5. Financial Emergency Enactments (Continuance) Act, 1932.

6. Sea Fisheries (Swansea) Order Confirmation Act, 1932.

7. Worksop Corporation Act, 1932.

Wheat Bill

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

I was saying before the proceedings were interrupted that I wished to call the attention of the Com- mittee to the fact that if the Minister accepted the Amendment it would entail the appointment of a considerable number of inspectors. Wheat is not always grown to the full extent of a field. Often some portion of a field is sown with wheat and, being a production area, it would necessitate either a considerable amount of surveying or a guess as to the acreage. Consequently, the information might be entirely inaccurate or unreliable. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

We cannot appreciate the reluctance of the Minister to accept the Amendment which we propose. We are asking for what appears to be a very natural provision. We propose that the records should be complete records. We understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite claim with some justice that they represent the farmers. They are unwilling to give information, except such information as will enable the farmers to get the payments due under the Measure. The Minister is responsible for much more than that.

They are unwilling to give information which might not be accurate.

It is strange if the farmer himself cannot give accurate information about his own business. We suggest that the Minister should be empowered to carry out the duties imposed upon him. Under Clause 2 the Minister has to have regard to general economic conditions and conditions affecting the agricultural industry in considering the desirability of making any alteration in the standard price. If the Minister has to have such a responsibility he should have full information. One of the most important factors regarding the standard price is the quantity of wheat grown per acre. I have always had in mind, in estimating the merits of the Bill, the possible subsidy to be paid per acre of land and not the quantity of wheat. The Minister will not be able to find out what is the fair standard price unless he knows from time to time the average quantity of wheat grown upon an average acre of land. That information will not be forthcoming unless we give powers in regard to this matter. The Wheat Commission is to have power to make by-laws, one of which is that a record is required to be kept of certain details of agriculture in this regard. We do not want to know what the farmer does with his other crops or what he does with regard to stock raising, but so long as public money is being dispensed and governmental machinery used in apportioning that money we ought to have the fullest possible knowledge about the industry which is to be subsidised under the Measure.

There are two or three other things which the Minister has to ascertain during the cereal year. He has to have a kind of stocktaking every year. He is to be given the responsibility of finding out the anticipated supply. Can a Minister, in spite of all the information which is available to him, estimate the supply of wheat in any given year unless he has before him a record of the average yield of wheat per acre year after year in every area and indeed on every farm? If the Minister does not know whether the yield per acre is 35 bushels or 30 bushels, how can he work out his anticipated supply? We think that the Minister and the Wheat Commission will be very much handicapped in the responsibilities which they have to assume. I appeal to those who claim to represent the farmers not to let us have any more hush-hush about agriculture. Let us have the fullest possible publicity and know what the industry is doing. If some hon. Members believe that the industry will improve its methods and be more efficient in production, the country will be very pleased, for the country has a right to know whether more effective results are being produced. We cannot get that knowledge unless the yield per acre year after year is provided and the record is published. We are anxious to have the machinery work as smoothly and as effectively as possible. We believe that the Amendment will improve the effectiveness of the Measure, and we hope that now the Minister will agree that it is a reasonable Amendment and one which is necessary if this particular part of the Bill is to achieve its purpose.

I think that there is a slight confusion of thought in what is aimed at here. Certainly, I am satisfied that as far as the Wheat Commission is concerned the records which the Wheat Commission should have will embrace all those circumstances and a knowledge of all the circumstances necessary for the carrying out of the duties of the Wheat Commission as such. On the other hand, some hon. Members have not spoken of that problem, but of the question as to what steps should be taken to get information as to the progress of cultivation, of mechanical equipment, the quantities of manures and so on. The Wheat Commission is really not the proper body to do that work. They will have their hands full enough with the statutory duties imposed upon them for the carrying out of the particular purposes of the Measure. But the further surveying which I agree with hon. Gentlemen in every part of the Committee is desirable for a complete knowledge dealing with the problem of the future ought to be

Division No. 118.]	AYES.	[5.59 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Parkinson, John Allen
Batey, Joseph	Grundy, Thomas W.	Price, Gabriel
Briant, Frank	Hail, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Buchanan, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Thorne, William James
Cape, Thomas	Hirst, George Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	John, William	Wellhead, Richard C.
Cove, William G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Edwards, Charles	Leonard, William	Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Logan, David Gilbert	Mr. Groves.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Brocklebank, C. E, R.	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd.,Hexham)	Cowan, D. M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)	Craven-Ellis, William
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Browne, Captain A. C.	Crossley, A. C.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Buchan, John	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Davison, Sir William Henry
Aske, Sir Robert William	Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Caine, G. R. Hall.	Dickie, John P.
Atholl, Duchess of	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Donner, P. W.
Atkinson, Cyril	Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Doran, Edward
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Drewe, Cedric
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Carver, Major William H.	Ouggan, Hubert John
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Eales, John Frederick
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Eastwood, John Francis
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Eden, Robert Anthony
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Elmley, Viscount
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Emmott, Charles E. G, C.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Emry-Evans, P. V.
Blindell, James	Chotzner, Alfred James	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Boothby, Robert John Graham	Christie, James Archibald	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Borodale, Viscount	Clarke, Frank	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Bossom, A. C.	Clarry, Reginald George	Everard, W. Lindsay
Boulton, W. W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Colville, John	Fermoy, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Conant, R. J. E.	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Cook, Thomas A.	Fox, Sir Gifford
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Cooke, Douglas	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Cooper, A. Duff	Ganzoni, Sir John
Broadbent, Colonel John	Copeland, Ida	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

done by other means. We have already, of course, a very complete return coming in from agricultural holdings, but I would say that we have had, for instance, and it will be continued, a very effective farm survey started under the auspices of the Cambridge School of Agriculture, which is staffed with experts competent to analyse and to examine the farm records so obtained. That is really, as I understand the position, what hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to obtain. That work is being done, and it will be continued, and the information obtained will be available to the House and to the Minister.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 293.

Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Mabane, William	Runge, Norah Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Glossop, C. W. H.	Mac Donald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	McKie, John Hamilton	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Golf, Sir Park	McLean, Major Alan	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Savery, Samuel Servington
Gower, Sir Robert	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Scone, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Maitland, Adam	Selley, Harry R.
Graves, Marjorie	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Grimston, R. V.	Martin, Thomas B.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Smiles, Lieut. -Col. Sir Walter D.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Smithers, Waldron
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Harris, Sir Percy	Mitcheson, G. G.	Soper, Richard
Hartland, George A.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.	Mullhead, Major A. J.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Munro, Patrick	Stones, James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Storey, Samuel
Holdsworth, Herbert	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.	North, Captain Edward T.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Howard, Tom Forrest	Nunn, William	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)	O'Connor, Terence James	Tate, Mavis Constance
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Templeton, William P.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Ormiston, Thomas	Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Pearson, William G.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Iveagh, Countess of	Peat, Charles U.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C)	Penny, Sir George	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Petherick, M.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)	Train, John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Pike, Cecil F.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Power, Sir John Cecil	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Kimball, Lawrence	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Knox, Sir Alfred	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Ramsden, E.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Weymouth, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Rea, Walter Russell	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Leckie, J. A.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Levy, Thomas	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lewis, Oswald	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Wise, Alfred R.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Withers, Sir John James
Llewellin, Major John J.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Robinson, John Roland	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Rosbotham, S. T.	Wragg, Herbert
Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Ross, Ronald D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.
		Womersley.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:

"(m) for prescribing the standard form or forms of contract for the sale of wheat."

To some extent the principle involved in this Amendment has already been discussed under a previous Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). In that Amendment my hon. and gallant Friend desired to insert the actual form of contract in the Act, whereas this Amendment seeks merely to authorise the Wheat Commission to prescribe a standard form of contract. Although the same principle is involved, I suggest, with all respect, that my Amendment is better than that of my hon. and gallant, Friend.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. It is not really necessary, because in so far as action on the lines suggested may be necessary for the purposes of the Act, it will be competent for the Commission under Clause 4 to make such by-laws as may be required. It is much better that the discretion should be left with the body which will have to deal with the matter, so that they can make them as and when they think best.

I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision. I know that it is competent for the Wheat Commission to do as he suggests, but it is of great importance, and we certainly attach great importance to it, that there should be a simple standardised form, that the House should indicate in the Bill itself that desirability, and that they should include it specifically as one of the items upon which the Wheat Commission should make by-laws.

In view of the very cruel reply from the Minister, I may inform the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that if he presses the Amendment to a, Division we shall support him in the Lobby.

Amendment negatived.

In regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown)—in page 10, line 14, after the word "certificates" to insert the words:

"and for the inspection of and report upon any wheat"—

I should be glad to have an explanation, because as at present drafted I cannot understand it. As the hon. and gallant Member is not present, I will proceed to call the next Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, to leave out from the word "certificates" to the end of line 16.

The words in the two lines which I seek to leave out require registered growers in a particular area to defray the cost of special arrangements which may be made by means of local by-laws in order that certificates of a special character may be issued. Apparently Sub-section (4) is designed to deal with cases where the general by-laws made by the Wheat Commission in regard to the issue of wheat certificates are insufficient

"for securing that such certificates are issued only upon satisfactory proof of the facts required to be thereby certified."

I have not entirely appreciated the intention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Sub-section, unless it is that in some part of Wales it may be required that the by-laws should be issued in Welsh. If that be so, then it is grossly unfair that the Welsh farmers should have to pay for it. If it be part of the general scheme, and if, as we believe, this Bill is so complicated that nobody can understand it without some special by-laws, it is a little unfair that the farmer should have to pay if he cannot understand it. It does not make much difference to the consumer one way or the other, but if the machinery is so complicated that there must be special regulations issued in order that the procedure may be carried out, then the whole cost of these schemes should be pooled and made a charge upon the fund. Unless the Minister of Agriculture can explain the necessity for these words we think they should be deleted.

This Sub-section is necessary where a local voluntary organisation is not forthcoming or is inadequate to furnish the necessary co-operation for the working of the scheme. In such a case, the Wheat Commission may find it necessary to send down an agent to set up some advisory body to investigate why things are not going smoothly, and the cost of that should fall upon the farmers in the district. It is right that this condition should be made. It can be avoided by the co-operation of farmers in the area. If, in fact, co-operation fails, or it becomes evident that improper use is being made of the provisions of the Bill in certain areas, then, obviously, the Wheat Commission will have to send down an inspector and set up a local committee. This matter has been discussed with the representatives of the Farmers' Union, and they have not objected to it. They agree that it is fair and reasonable. I hope it may never occur, or at any rate that it will only occur for a very short period. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press the Amendment.

I understand that this is a penal provision allowing the State, through the Wheat Commission, to exercise some control over the farmers. I think we will approve of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 10, in line 21, after the word "Gazettes," to insert the words:

"and in such other manner as the Wheat Commission may deem necessary for the information of all persons interested."

This is an Amendment which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will accept. It makes certain in a more satisfactory way the publication of the information which the farmer is to get. In nearly all cases of Bills of this kind, where information is to be conveyed to the public, provision is made not only for publication in the Gazettes, but in the local papers which circulate in the district where the scheme is to be put into force. That may not be advisable in this case, but we think that some indication should be given by some other method than by publication in the Gazettes. We think that the Wheat Commission should see that the information regarding their by-laws should get to the farmers who are intimately concerned and who may be penalised if they do not understand them. I am sure that the Minister will accept the suggestion that some form of publication other than the Gazettes should be made.

The Wheat Commission will be able, and quite naturally will take steps, to bring their by-laws to the notice of all persons interested. The Amendment really does not add anything to their powers, but I am quite willing to accept it down to the word "necessary," leaving out the subsequent words.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. But surely the question is to bring it to "the information of all persons interested." I do not understand why he objects to those words. If he objects to all persons who are interested getting the information, for some reason or other, we will leave the words out and accept his suggestion.

Will the Minister of Agriculture explain why he thinks it necessary to accept the Amendment down to the word "necessary," and objects to the words "for the information of all persons interested"?

I think it should be left to the Wheat Commission to decide how far and in what respect and in what manner they should give this information. The words at the end of the Amendment might perhaps lead to great trouble.

The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to the Committee why he is prepared to accept the words

"in such other manner as the Wheat Commission may deem necessary,"

and wishes to leave out the words

"for the information of all persons interested."

The phrase "all persons interested" is really very vague.

I think it would be better if the Minister of Agriculture moved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to delete the words after the word "necessary."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "for the information of all persons interested."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

There are one or two matters to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister before we part with this Clause. A number of suggestions were put down as Amendments to this Clause, but we have not had an opportunity of raising them because they have not been selected or have been out of order. This Clause sets up the major matters as to which the Wheat Commission shall make by-laws, and thereby it indicates the major powers and duties of the Wheat Commission. During the course of his Second Reading speech we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that there were two points of importance which had been agreed with the millers, first. that there should be no increase in the price of flour over and above the addition made necessary by the payment of the quota or subsidy, and, secondly, that the millers, as part of their bargain, have undertaken to protect the farmers of this country by not exporting offal except where was an excessive seasonal supply, and then they were prepared to do it under some system of licensing. These two matters, we think, should find their place somewhere in the Bill, and it seems that Clause 4 is the place where they should appear. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he can put actually into the words of this Clause these two undertakings on the part of the millers, which are of great importance.

The Committee will appreciate the point that when a tax or subsidy of this sort is put upon the price of an article there is a great liability for the seller of these goods to add a little more, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged this in his speech by saying with considerable pride that he had persuaded the millers in this case not to add a little more as was customary in matters of this kind. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in going so far in protecting the consumer, but we suggest that the consumer will be far happier to see it in black and white, and we are sure that it will help in the future administration of this Bill if it is in black and white. If the millers ever start to go back on their promise, and the right hon. Gentleman must assume that this is a possibility, although it is not very likely to happen, his position will be far stronger if the Wheat Commission have the power to say that nothing shall be added to the price of flour over and above the quota payment. That is what the millers have undertaken to do, and all we are asking is to have this undertaking in black and white. If the right hon. Gentleman has any trouble hereafter with some recalcitrant miller he can say that it is in the Act of Parliament itself.

6.30 p.m.

Then as regards the question of licensing the export of offal. That, clearly, is a duty which should fall on the Wheat Commission. They are the people charged with the control of the whole flour and milling position of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in order to strike a bargain the millers have agreed not to export wheat offal except under some sort of licensing system. He says that it is impossible for the Government to license them because that would bring us into some danger in regard to certain commercial treaties with other countries, but we ask him to give the Wheat Commission power to set up such a licensing system. They are evidently the people who should deal with it. Unless this power is given expressly to the Wheat Commission, they cannot exercise any power of this sort. There are other matters which have been raised by the Amendments put down to this Clause. We believe that if the Wheat Commission is going to run the milling industry, as it will have to do by control and by-laws, that it should be given the very widest possible powers to get all the material information and to exercise all material control. In this case we have a great number of detailed matters set out so that the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he would not like to add more detail. We have already got down to (1), which is about low enough for the right hon. Gentleman to go, and one or two more paragraphs would help to bring him out of that hole. We suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to examine these proposals before the Report stage, particularly the two undertakings which he has got from the millers and to which we attach the greatest importance. Unless these are put into the Bill we fear that great trouble may be found hereafter in getting them complied with.

I desire to reply to the two definite points upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman has concentrated. He said, first, that there is nothing in the Bill giving the Wheat Commission power to make bylaws to steady the price of flour. I think the answer to that point is that it would be extending the scope of the activities and functions of the Wheat Commission far beyond anything which would be contemplated in their ordinary work, to give them the duty of keeping down the price of flour in this country.

I did not suggest that they should be able to keep down the price of flour but that they should be able to enforce the undertaking which has been given that the price of flour will not be above the world price by more than the subsidy.

I am sorry if I put the hon. and learned Gentleman's point in rather too broad a fashion. Even to do what he suggests would put the Wheat Committee, with regard to the millers, in a position quite outside their ordinary functions. I cannot think that it would be wise to give the Wheat Commission the duty of controlling the price at which flour is offered by the millers. Further, I am sure nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Member that it is the constant practice, particularly with regard to arrangements in Finance Bills for agreements to be come to between the parties concerned which do not appear in the Bill, and experience has shown that these agreements are carried out with the utmost fidelity. Clearly this is such a case. With regard to the second point as to whether powers should be given to the Commission to make by-laws to prevent the exportation of offals, I am afraid a great deal of consideration would be needed before one could conclude that the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion of putting this duty on the Wheat Commission would get us out of the difficulty in relation to commercial treaties. To give the Commission such a power would undoubtedly require legislation. Whether we did it directly by the State, or whether we did it by putting the duty upon a subsidiary body, namely, the Wheat Commission, I do not think we should get out of the treaty difficulty. I do not imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself is of the opinion that by making the Wheat Commission the responsible persons it would be possible to get out of the difficulty in regard to contravening commercial treaties.

With regard to the more general observations of the hon. and learned Member, it is true that a good many suggestions which have been made in reference to the by-laws—suggestions of what they might or ought to contain—have not been discussed in Committee, but I am sure I can say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that those undiscussed Amendments will be looked at before the Report stage. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman himself will agree that for those responsible for the passage of this Bill it is essential not to burden the Wheat Commission with duties which are extraneous to their real function. Their function, difficult as some of it may be made by the necessities of Parliamentary draftmanship, is clear and simple and is restricted to one perfectly practical object. I cannot think that it would be wise to take the opportunity of the establishment of this body to put upon their backs a number of functions with which logically they have no concern.

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has met the point. Whatever may be done in commercial life in regard to gentlemen's agreements, when it comes to an Act of Parliament I do not think it is satisfactory to rely upon something which is not in the Act of Parliament or on agreements between passing and fugitive Ministers and outside bodies. I think it is rather important that we should have these matters stated definitely in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has said that what we have suggested does not come within the functions of the Wheat Commission. The function of the Commission is to collect money and that money is to be handed over to the farmers. The whole point is to see that in fact that money, the provision of which is going to involve the consumer in a charge, is not going into the pockets of the millers. It seems to me perfectly simple that the Wheat Commission should have the function of seeing that this scheme works in such a way as to carry out the declared intention, which is to extract certain money from the pockets of the consumer and place it in the pockets of the farmers. I do not see why the Commission should not have power to see that the money does not stick somewhere in the pockets of the millers.

As to the other point raised by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I am fairly well acquainted with the commercial treaties, and I agree that it may be, and probably is true that the Wheat Commission will be held to be so involved with the Government as to give rise to the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman anticipates in that respect. But is it not possible to do this through the Millers' Corporation? That is a matter of the internal organisation of trade. I do not think that the Millers' Corporation would be in the same position as the Wheat Commission. In their case, after all, it would merely be giving power to a trade to regulate itself. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to look into this question and to see whether our suggestion on that point could not be carried out specifically as a, matter of the internal regulation of the trade through the Millers' Corporation. These two points require further consideration. When we are embarking on a new experiment of this kind, setting up an elaborate machinery and transferring sums from the public to private hands we ought to see that there is something more than a verbal agreement governing these matters.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5—(Provisions For Securing Payment Of Quota Payments In Respect Of Imported Flour, And Pre-Entry Of Export Flour)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I wish to raise a question of administration on this Clause. Sub-section (1, a) provides that quota payments shall not be payable to any officer of Customs and Excise. That seems a little strange, but the explanation may lie in some international agreement. From the first part of this Sub-section it appears that payment has to be made to one officer of the State or of the Commission and that another officer of the State has to examine the receipt. There would appear to be a little unnecessary administration, and the possibility of some loss of money in that arrangement. Probably there is an adequate explanation but I think it ought to be stated.

On this Clause I raise another question similar to that just mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). As I understand Sub-section (1) no entry of any flour for home consumption or use shall be signed by any officer, except upon the surrender to him of a receipt in the prescribed form. Now the quota does not become payable under Clause 3 (2) in respect of imported wheat, until it has been entered, and the receipt, of course, should not he given until payment has been made. There, it seems to me, you have an impasse because the man cannot enter it, until he has given the receipt but the payment is not due until the entry has been made. Thus you have to get the receipt before you make the payment but as the receipt is expressed in Sub-section (1, a) of this Clause to be conclusive evidence that the payment has been made, clearly, the receipt cannot be issued before payment has been made. No doubt there is an adequate explanation but I do not see how this arrangement is going to operate. There is a further question. Under Clause 3 (7) there is a, provision by which when an Order is changed, varying the amount of the quota, the new sum prescribed by the new Order becomes payable "when the payment accrues due." I do not quite understand under Sub-section (1) of this Clause at what moment "payment accrues due" unless it is upon entry. If the money is to be paid before the receipt is obtained, and the receipt handed over in order to effect entry, is the money due and payable at the date when the money is paid for the receipt, or at the date when the goods are actually entered? It may be that there will be different standards of quota payable on those two days. I should like some explanation of these points.

I must confess that from a purely House of Commons point of view I am always concerned when a machinery Clause of an intricate character, like this, goes through without discussion. We constantly hear in the courts criticisms of the manner in which the House of Commons does its work, and, undoubtedly, during the last 25 years, as any lawyer will tell the Committee, there has been a great increase in the number of cases in which it has been found almost impossible to interpret some Act of Parliament. I make no criticisms of my right hon. Friend the Minister, but I suggest that either he, or preferably a Law Officer, if one is available, should explain these intricate machinery Clauses when, as happens in this case, no Amendments are put down to them. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," an explanation of such a Clause should be offered to the Committee. The points which have been raised, at any rate, call for an answer, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to give an answer, but I suppose the Clause would have gone through without discussion if they had not been raised.

In Sub-section (2) of the Clause, which deals with the fine to be imposed in the case of any exporter or shipper of flour for exportation as stores who fails to make a declaration, it says that if the entry is false in any particular he shall be liable to a penalty of £100. Am I not right in saying that it is usual in Acts of Parliament to put in the words "not exceeding"? By putting in the words "a penalty of £100"—and I would direct the attention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to this point—does it not look like an invitation to the court to impose that penalty? It would be a monstrous state of affairs if, for instance, in the case of a small steamer going from a United Kingdom port to France, and having on board, as ship's stores, some biscuits, for example, not exceeding in value £10 or £15, a fine of £100 were imposed. Would it not be better to put in "not exceeding £100," if you want to have such a fine, which is, I suppose, desirable in the case of any serious failure to make an entry?

I hope my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity, in replying—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works kindly speak a little less loudly? It is difficult, I know, because these matters have to be ascertained, shall I say, in the proper quarters, but may I make a suggestion to the Minister, that he should take the opportunity, when replying to this point, to give us a short exposition as to the general effect of this very important and intricate machinery Clause?

Why should an exporter of flour be fined at all? The only transaction that the exporter can perform is to export flour which previously has made a quota payment, and the maximum which he could receive would be the return of the original payment that had been made. Why should we render the exporter liable to any sort of fine at all?

I want to supplement one thing that my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said. If we do not insert the words "wilfully false" or "false in some material particular," any entry that is only incidentally and unintentionally false would be liable to the penalty.

I think there is something in what my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, that these machinery Clauses ought to be carefully watched. This particular machinery Clause is not so much the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, but is a Clause put in by the Customs and Excise Department, who are familiar with the working of these matters, in order to make sure that this Bill, framed by the Ministry of Agriculture, is on all fours with the law and practice of the Customs and Excise Department, with this improvement, that whereas, to take the point raised by the Noble Lord and by the hon. and gallant Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen), very often there is mere legislation by reference, saying that the Customs Act of such and such a year shall apply, at any rate in printing this Bill, the particular Section of the Customs Consolidation Act is set out.

No. It says "in lieu of."

It is the interpretation under that Customs Consolidation Act, and in order to make sure that this is on all fours with the practice under that Act. I understand that these words are, as regards the penalty of £100, quite definitely qualified by the practice of all Customs and Excise law, whereby, I am advised, the maximum penalty, and in fact all penalty, is frequently limited. I am satisfied, as to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead, that if it is not obviously wilful and culpable, there will not be a conviction. In fact, we all know that the £100 operates as a maximum.

No.

It does, and it may be remitted altogether, I am advised.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that it is the general practice in these Customs and Excise Acts to use the phrase "a penalty of £100," and not, as is usual in other Acts of Parliament, "a penalty not exceeding £100"?

I am assured of that by the representative of the Department. However, we will make quite certain that that is so, the point having been brought up. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the object of proviso (a) of Sub-section (1) is two-fold. It is, first, to make sure that payments which are continually being made in a Customs office, and which are destined for the Customs fund, and those which are destined for the wheat fund shall not get mixed up, and, secondly, to make it quite clear that the Customs authorities will not allow flour to enter unless the certificate is produced for their inspection. That is the right way to work this machinery, that the actual certificate should be produced for inspection and that then clearance should be given. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), that, I am advised, is covered by the proviso in Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, on page 9, from lines 29 to 34 inclusive. I do not profess to be a brilliant draftsman myself, but it seems to me that that proviso covers the kind of points raised by the hon. and learned Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me how?

I will look into it, but as I understood the point raised by the hon. and learned Member—I admit that it is complicated—it could be and is covered in the drafting of the Bill by the proviso that I have just mentioned, in Clause 4. He asked also as to when the payment for imported flour would be due. It is due upon entry. It may involve adjustments, and records, obviously, will have to be kept of the payments, and where an importer can show that he has paid too much, or if he has paid too little, the accounts can be adjusted. In the general trade of flour importing, as I understand, it is not as if this will be an isolated transaction. In very rare cases it might be an isolated transaction, but generally speaking it wilt be one of a continuous series of transactions, and a running account of them will he kept.

If hon. Members still have any anxiety on any points in connection with machinery Clauses of this kind, if they will draw attention to them, the Government are most anxious to make sure that there are no new departures and that this is in line with the ordinary law governing this kind of thing. It is our object to make no new changes or to introduce no new departures which affect what inevitably has grown up as the practice of the Customs and Excise Department in regard to a law that is either consolidated in the minds of the judges who administer the law or that is actually consolidated in a consolidating Statute. It is to bring the machinery of this Bill into line with the general law and to avoid any new departures that this kind of machinery Clause is introduced.

We fully sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his very genuine attempt to explain this complicated Clause away. We are not able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the clarity of the matter after his explanation, but that in no way affects the effort.

I do not suppose the hon. Member is a lawyer any more than I am.

That is exactly why I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why the exporter or shipper of any flour intended for exportation as stores shall duly enter the flour before export or shipment. The object of entering the flour is to secure repayment of a quota payment which has been previously paid, and if the exporter fails to enter the record, he does not receive that quota payment originally made, and not only so, but he is liable to a fine of £100. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that some munificent shipowner who wants to ship flour and is called upon to make an entry in order to receive a return of a sum of money, but who might gratuitously say, "I do not want to receive this money back," should then be rendered liable to a penalty of £100? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will instruct a non-lawyer exactly why that should be.

I understand that the point raised by my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is to be reconsidered, and I intervene to point out that indeed it appears to need it. I have taken the trouble to get the Section of the Act of 1876 in order to compare what it is that we are substituting in this Clause for the old Section in the Customs Consolidation Act. The language has been varied, and anybody who has had any experience of the courts will know that if you find a variation in language, the court is assumed to suppose that Parliament meant to vary the meaning of the words it uses, and has a different intention in the one case from the other. In the Act of 1876, in Section 139, the language used is:

"the person who fails or neglects to make the entry or if the same be false in any particular shall forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds and such cask or package and the contents thereof shall also be forfeited."

7.0 p.m.

It may well be that, under that language, there may be left some discretion in the Customs authorities to say, "We will not in this case forfeit all the £100 or all the cask or package." But, when we come to this Bill, which, after all, is dealing with an entirely new subject matter, and therefore it is to be supposed that the legislature is applying its mind to new things, and when we look at Sub-section (2) to see what is to be substituted for Section 139, we find that the language is entirely different. It is not that he shall forfeit a sum of money, but that if the entry be false he shall be liable to a penalty of£100. Before proceeding, I would like the Committee to look at Section 14, which provides certain other penalties, and in each instance in that Section he will find the language most carefully framed. In each instance where a pecuniary penalty is provided, as for instance on page 20, line 9, are the words:

"liable.…to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment.…."

That is in each instance in the Clause. As an essay in construction, if this Clause came to be construed, it appears to me highly probable that, where you find in one Act of Parliament dealing with a new subject matter and a new state of affairs the words "not exceeding" put in in one Section and left out in. another, it would be held that it was not done by accident, but was done by design. Therefore, the point made by the right hon. Member for Horsham is a good point. It does appear that this would prevent any tribunal or any court or any Customs officer that is going to deal with this matter from saying, "On this occasion the matter is so trivial that you will only pay 5s." It does appear, therefore, that this point needs further consideration. As to the other point which was made by the hon. Member opposite, I myself have the same difficulty in appreciating it as 'he has. He looks at it from the mind of a layman, and I look at it from the mind, of a lawyer. After all, it is the layman who is often going to be concerned in these matters, and not the lawyer at all. It seems to me there is the utmost difficulty in making the two parts of the Bill fit together, and I suggest that the Clause does need re-examination, overhauling and re-drafting.

I do not want to dispute what the First Commissioner for Works has said. I would be the last to, make an attack on him, in view of the courtesy he has always shown to the Committee and in view of his desire to meet points which are raised, for which we are very grateful. I am sure, however, that he will allow a few comments because, after all, disunity in the Ministerial family is as fashionable as being a platinum blonde. He will not mind comments on the attitude of the Government on what is, after all, a very important machinery Clause. He used the phrase that he was instructed on the matter. Had it been the Financial Secretary, whose business it is not to be instructed but to know, it would have been possible to obtain a more definite answer, but that is a small and pernickety point. I will deal with a point of rather more substance. My right hon. Friend said that he would make sure before the Report stage if there was any departure from the existing law. My hon. and learned Friend beside me thinks that there is a change in principle. Ministers who come down with Bills like this should come down with knowledge of these points. These things did not happen when Leaders of the House were present during every important Debate. Now that we have two Leaders of the House, they are not present as often as when we had one. I have no doubt the Leader of the Opposition should also be present.

The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) has just left the House.

There is no reason why he should not remain. I am not making an attack upon him. I understand that the Lord President has a very proper reason for being absent. I am speaking generally. I am only saying that in the old days these important Committee points were dealt with more carefully than at present. I am content to leave the matter to the Report stage, but in the case of these more important machinery Clauses which really affect the whole working of the Bill—and I suggest to my hon. Friend behind me, who is really the father of the Bill, that, unless the machinery of the Bill is such that the public can understand it, we shall not get the advantage from the Bill that we desire—I suggest that from now onwards the Ministers should make sure beforehand that a thing is so, and come down here able to answer the questions put to them.

I do not want to join in the castigation—

The last thing I wanted to do was to castigate.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was not castigating at all. I must say a word about the Lord President of the Council that, although I attack him as a member of the Opposition, it is fair to say that he has put in quite as much time as the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

There is this difference between the Lord President of the Council and myself in this regard, and there are many other differences, namely, that he receives a salary for being here and I receive a salary which, owing to the provisions of the law, does not compel me to be here.

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is not in whole-time employment. May I ask the First Commissioner of Works one further question? There is a point which seems to me a matter of great importance on this Clause. As I understand it, under the proviso on page 9 to which he refers, it is possible to issue receipts for quota payments in advance, and those receipts can be issued not against any goods at all but simply on demand. Those receipts will then become negotiable instruments, and can be gambled with. Those receipts will represent nothing except the payment of a certain sum of money to a certain person, and they can be passed from one person to another. Where you are going to have a changing quota, as contemplated in this Bill, and not a fixed quota, people may well buy a great quantity of these receipts in advance, or store them up, or purchase them from other people who have them. It is a very dangerous feature to introduce. Again, on page 11, line 10, it says that these receipts shall

"be conclusive evidence that those payments have been made."

If the receipts are issued in advance of payments, once the receipt is in the hands of the person who is going to pay he has got conclusive evidence that he has paid. If anyone demands the money from him, he shows them the Act and says that the receipt is conclusive evidence of payment. The right hon. Gentleman must make this a little more reasonable, or there will be a first-class means of evading payments under this Bill.

There are three points I want to make. First, with regard to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, it is not as he suggested. The words are, "for the purpose of such enactments," that is, for the purpose of enactments relating to Customs and Excise. These receipts are to be conclusive evidence that the 'payments have been made. The scheme contemplated by the section is as follows, and really Sub-section (1) is easy to follow if one appreciates the difference between entry and signature of the entry. It is following a, procedure with which we are familiar. The first thing that is done when goods are imported is that they are entered in a book with the name of the consignee. The next thing is that the consignee has to pay his duty. In this case he has to give evidence that he has made the payments that this Act requires. He produces a receipt and, for the purpose of the Customs official, that receipt is to be conclusive. When he has produced that receipt, then, and not till then, does the Customs officer sign the entry. When the entry is signed, and not till then, can the consignee remove his goods. The procedure is perfectly simple and the receipt, which it is true can be given in advance under the scheme, is not conclusive evidence between the holder of the receipt and anybody else, but only conclusive evidence for the purpose of securing the signature of the entry in the book.

It is not merely the production of the receipt. The point is a stronger point than the one the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. It is the production and surrender of the receipt.

I agree that it strengthens the point. He gets the entry signed and removes his goods, leaving the receipt with the Customs officer. There is one point which the First Commissioner of Works made which one cannot let pass unchallenged. It was suggested that the words:

"if he fails or neglects to make such entry or if the entry be false …."

might imply that an offence had been committed even though the person had not been wilful about it, and the First Commissioner said it would not be an offence unless it was done wilfully. If that is the intention, the words ought to be altered. It is true that for offences at Common Law a guilty mind is part of the offence; but statutory offences, of which so many have been created in recent years, do not depend on the guilty mind at all, and many innocent people have been convicted under those statutes for not carrying out some duty which the Acts imposed upon them. One can think of many illustrations. A man may be wholly ignorant of the law, yet ignorance of the law is no excuse. Very often these offences are committed by servants or agents of the person who is prosecuted, but it is no answer to say, "I know nothing about it; I gave orders to my servant, and he failed to carry them out."

Under this Clause the offence will he complete, however innocent the offender may be in his mind. He may have failed to do something either in ignorance, or because his agent failed to do what he told him to do, and he may have had every intention of performing this duty, and yet, through somebody else's fault, there has been a failure, and therefore he becomes liable to a penalty of £100. If these words stood alone in the Bill, it would be very arguable that the greater includes the less, and that there would be discretion in the magistrates to impose a lesser fine, but there is great force in the argument that in the other Clause in the Bill where penalties are imposed, we always have the words "not exceeding." It is suggested, therefore, that where you have different language in the Bill a different intention exists. At any rate, if the desire is that there should be no distinction, it would he a simple thing to make it clear.

May I thank the First Commissioner of Works for the way that he has realised the complications of this Clause, and to assure him that none of us wish to hamper the progress of the Bill. I would point out that the Clause in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, only imposes this penalty where people are exporting explosives, and it seems a little strange to make here the same penalty which the Act of 1876 thought. fit to impose for explosives.

I have listened carefully to what has been said in the Debate. These Clauses were drafted in consultation with the Customs. They are, as I understand it, in line with the general procedure, but in view of the discussion I agree that they require to be carefully looked into, and I will undertake to have that done in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown.

It is a little unfortunate that we have had no Law Officers of the Crown here. We have four Law Officers, and we ought certainly to have had some legal advice. We have had admirable legal opinion from the back benches, but on a first-class Measure like this there should be some attendance on the part of the Law Officers.

In order to enable my right hon. Friend to deal with this question on the Report stage, I propose to move to delete the Clause, and I am sure that we will be in a position then to answer the points that have been raised.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 6—(Provisions As To Wheat Fund)

I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, at the end, to add the words:

"and no other payments shall be made out of the Wheat Fund unless such account and report are approved by the Commons House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after such account and report have been laid before Parliament."

The object of the Amendment is to see that the proceedings of the Wheat Commission and the whole matter of the Wheat Fund are kept within the control of Parliament. We are embarking on a very novel experiment; the House is setting up this body, and we are extracting money, really by way of a tax upon certain consumers, and we shall hand it over as a subsidy to certain categories of persons. It is very necessary that the House should keep the closest possible control on this experiment. As far as I can gather, looking at the Front Bench opposite at the present moment, this Bill is a permanent subsidy. Of course, if the Secretary of State for Scotland were present it would be temporary. It is most necessary, therefore, that the House should know what is happening. Millions of pounds will be passed into this Fund and will be distributed through the Fund, and Parliament ought to keep control over it. We on this side are, perhaps, rather meticulous in insisting that these experiments in collective trading should be under the control of the House, but I do not gather from the Bill that there is any real effective power of review. The Amendment says, that not only must the accounts and reports be laid before Parliament, but that there must be a Debate on the whole subject, and that no further payments will be made out of the Wheat Fund until the House has approved affirmatively of the accounts and the report. That is a safeguard which ought to be put into the Bill. I recollect in the discussions on the last Bill dealing with agricultural matters, hon. Members opposite were insistent on the control of Parliament all the way through, and I hope that the change of sides in the House has not changed their opinion. We want to see that Parliament is not left altogether out of control in this taxing and doling machinery.

The effect of this Amendment would be to break down the whole machinery of the working of the Wheat Commission, because it will mean that from the time when the report is presented to the time when the House has passed a special affirmative Resolution approving the previous year's accounts, no disbursements whatever, even to their own staff, could be made by the Wheat Commission. That is quite an unprecedented form of Parliamentary control, and is obviously not what is intended or desired. Everybody agrees that it is only right that the Ministry, and through the Ministry, Parliament should watch this experiment and should have a report each year properly certified and audited, but the proper control of Parliament ought to be exercised in the ordinary way, namely, by its power to raise any question concerning the administration of this fund on the Minister's salary. The Minister has to approve the Estimates and the expenditure of this fund.

Constitutionally, the duties of the Minister in regard to the fund and to the Wheat Commission have been preserved, and therefore it will be open to the House at any time to ask questions about them, and it will be open to the House of Commons to review the matter in Committee of Supply on the Vote of the Minister's salary. It would be quite impracticable without breaking down the whole machinery of the Commission, to require an affirmative Resolution in this case, and the Government cannot possibly agree with the Amendment. It would mean that unless and until the Comptroller and Auditor - General's accounts and report have been approved by a special affirmative Resolution no payments whatever could be made. That is really an impractical method of providing Parliamentary control. The mere fact that the Government have assured in this Bill that the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall review the fund each year and shall make a report, is a sufficient indication that they are determined that this whole matter shall be carried on in accordance with the strict rules of national finance and of Ministerial and public control.

7.30 p.m.

This is the first time that I have intervened in the Debate to-day, but I must confess that I am not happy about the words used by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that our Amendment was unprecedented. It is unprecedented because the Bill itself is unprecedented. Consequently, if we are going to deal with the money of the consumer through the farmer, the miller, the Wheat Commission and the Ministry, we must have evidence and balance sheets in a new way entirely. Let me run through the organisations and the people who will have pickings out of this £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. There is the farmer, the individual miller, the Millers' Corporation, the Wheat Commission, the corn merchant, the poultry keeper, the Minister of Agriculture and the Government Departments concerned. All these people will receive some payments, and this Bill is designed to give them pickings. I am glad to take part in this particular point of finance. My hon. Friends have been dealing with the quota, but they think that I am capable of saying a word or two about balance sheets. There is an analogy between this Measure and the beet sugar subsidy. How long will it take, unless we carry this Amendment, before the Government Department is able to secure an audit of the accounts? It seems to me that a large number of Amendments will be required to make the Bill workable. This is the mast complicated thing I have ever seen before Parliament, and I wish to deal with the point about the accounts. Will the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation be audited by the Treasury?

Division No. 119.]	AYES.	[7.32 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Briant, Frank	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Buchanan, George	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hirst, George Henry	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cove, William G.	Holdsworth, Herbert	Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Janner, Barnett	Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Kirkwood, David	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles	Lawson, John James	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Leonard, William	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Logan, David Gilbert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYFS.—
		Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Atkinson, Cyril	Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Blindell, James
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Boothby, Robert John Graham
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Borodale, Viscount
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm th, C.)	Bossom, A. C.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Bernays, Robert	Boulton, W. W.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Aske, Sir Robert William	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

I think the speech of the hon. Member would be more appropriate to the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The point before us now is whether the payment should be made out of the Wheat Commission Fund before a definite Resolution has been passed by this House.

I was getting a little wide of the mark, because I wanted to prove that I knew something about the subject. Perhaps I may have an opportunity of putting my point later, because it is an important one. On the particular issue now before us our Amendment says:

"and no other payment shall be made out of the Wheat Fund until such account and report are approved by the Commons House of Parliament."

Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of the House of Commons? If that is not the case he ought to accept this Amendment. Altogether too much authority has been given to Government Departments by this Government. They have rushed Bills through Parliament at such a speed that I am not sure whether the Departments can digest them properly or work them, and that is one of the reasons why I am supporting the Amendment. Having said that much, I am sure I have convinced the Government that there is substance in this Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 230.

Boyce, H. Leslie	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Ramsden, E.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Horsbrugh, Florence	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Broadbent, Colonel John	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Rea, Walter Russell
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Caine, G. R. Hall	Iveagh, Countess of	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Robinson, John Roland
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Johnston, J. w. (Clackmannan)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Rosbotham, S. T.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Kimball, Lawrence	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Russell, Hamer Field, (Sheffield, B'tside)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Law, Sir Alfred	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Christie, James Archibald	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.;	Salmon, Major Isidore
Clarry, Reginald George	Leckie, J. A.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Colville, John	Levy, Thomas	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Conant, R. J. E.	Lewis, Oswald	Savery, Samuel Servington
Cook, Thomas A.	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Scone, Lord
Cooke, Douglas	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Llewellin, Major John J.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Crossley, A. C.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dickie, John P.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Donner, P. W.	Mabane, William	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Drewe, Cedric	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Duggan, Hubert John	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Stones, James
Duncan, James A. L, (Kensington, N.)	McKie, John Hamilton	Storey, Samuel
Eales, John Frederick	McLean, Major Alan	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Eastwood, John Francis	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Sutcliffe, Harold
Elmley, Viscount	Maitland, Adam	Templeton, William P.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C,	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Thompson, Luke
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Martin, Thomas B.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Fermoy, Lord	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Fox, Sir Gilford	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Moreing, Adrian C.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Glossop, C. W. H.	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Munro, Patrick	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Coff, Sir Park	Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Gower, Sir Robert	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Weymouth, Viscount
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Nunn, William	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	O'Connor, Terence James	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Greene, William P. C.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grimston, R. V.	Ormiston, Thomas	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Wise, Alfred R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Pearson, William G.	withers, Sir John James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Penny, Sir George	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Petherick, M.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)	Wragg, Herbert
Hartland, George A.	Pike, Cecil F.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Mr. Womersley and Major George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Davies,
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7—(Adjustment Of Surpluses And Deficiencies In Wheat Fund)

I beg to (move, in page 12, line 29, to leave out from the word "year," to the word "quota" in line 32.

The effect of this Amendment would be to omit the words:

"or by reason of the estimated average price of home-grown millable wheat ceasing to be less than the standard price."

This Amendment was put down with the object of drawing the Minister, and inducing him to give us his views on whether the price of home-grown wheat is likely to rise above the standard price. I am very glad that the First Commissioner of Works is to reply, because I know he understands the Bill, and it has been perfectly obvious since the Debate started that the Minister of Agriculture does not understand it. It is also perfectly certain that the First Commissioner of Works has some very decided views on the subject, while the Minister of Agriculture is apparently only able to repeat the views which are handed to him on a piece of paper or communicated to him orally from the official pew. [Interruption.] Certainly that is so. I hope the First Commissioner will be able to give us a very definite estimate. The price of homegrown wheat necessarily depends upon the free market price, which, in turn, depends on the world price, and that is determined by the supply, and particularly by the question of whether there is or is not a world surplus.

At the present moment the world carryover of wheat is simply enormous, and it is increasing year by year. The official figures for Canada were given to us the other day, and they are really striking. In 1926 the carry-over was 26,000,000 bushels, in 1927 36,000,000 bushels, in 1928 50,000,000 bushels, in 1929 77,000,000 bushels, in 1930 104,000,000 bushels and in 1931 111,000,000 bushels. The estimated carry-over at 31st December, 1931, was no less than 212,000,000 bushels. That is the figure for Canada alone. That 212,000,000 bushels represents almost the total supply required by the United Kingdom for one year. The position in Canada is paralleled in a number of other countries. When an ex-Minister for the Dominion was addressing us in the Committee Room in Westminster Hall the other night he finished up with these words, which I took down at the time:

"As far as can be seen the position"

that is, in regard to Canada,

"will be even more serious when the next harvest is reaped."

The position is exactly the same in the United States; and we know that the estimated surplus in Russia after the next autumn reaping will be very much greater than last year's. Each year a larger area in Russia is being collectivised and sown and reaped under a system of complete mechanisation. The last official figures that I have seen from the Soviet Union showed that the estimated surplus available for export from Russia from the present harvest would be nearly one-third greater than last year. That means that we are going to have on the world market in this coming year a greater surplus than has ever been known before in the history of the world. I do not think there is any dispute in trade circles on that particular point. A great many hon. Members opposite would desire to exclude Russian wheat products from this country. I have heard that view expressed in this House over and over again. It would not matter in the least degree to the world wheat situation if we did exclude Russian wheat products. All that would happen would be that the surplus not sold here would be dumped upon the general neutral markets. We should be shutting out very good wheat at an extremely cheap price and buying a relatively inferior wheat at a higher price. We should do ourselves no good, but simply cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Then we have had talk in this House within the last few days about the surplus of wheat which is to be exported from India in this coming season. The Viceroy opened a great dam on the Indus a few weeks ago. I understood from an Anglo-Indian gentleman in the Lobby here only a couple of days ago that a good many of the lands now being irrigated have since been sown or were sown before the dam was opened. The Punjab expects this year to be able to return to the position of being an exporter of wheat, and it did not export last year. From this year onward there will be an increasing export of wheat from our Indian Empire. That, again, will aggravate the situation so far as the world price is concerned. The Oriental people hoped that they would absorb this great surplus. It was assumed that the rising standard of living in the East would cause the people to substitute wheat for rice for ordinary consumption, but hope in that direction has been defeated, because those Orientals who have consumed wheat in place of rice found that from the point of view of health they have not been so well as with their native diet, and to a very large extent Orientals have returned to the old diet.

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing these matters on this Amendment

I have listened to the hon. Member very carefully. As far as I can make out he is giving reasons why, if the supply of wheat becomes much larger, the price of imported wheat would be very low. The hon. Member has been very long, but I do not think he is out of order.

That was precisely the intention of my remarks. I was trying to show that there was no likelihood whatever of the home price either approximating to the standard price or rising appreciably at all within any for-seeable time, that the prospect was that the surplus will be further increased in the course of the next few years, and that that fact alone will certainly involve a stabilisation of the home price at the present figure, if it does not actually diminish it. The general feeling in what I might call the corn and flour world is that the present low price will continue to rule for a fair number of years to come at the very least, and in these circumstances there seems little or no prospect of the home price reaching the standard price mentioned in the Bill.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in his very interesting remarks as to the future of wheat prices. I fancy there is an alternative view, based on the well-known fact that when the price of an agricultural product falls to a very low level, there is an immediate reaction in the restriction of area. I do not propose to discuss that in full, and for this reason: The Clause is really only a machinery Clause, and the phrase which the hon. Gentleman wishes to have excised is in the Bill only for one purpose. I have my own suspicion that the hon. Gentleman already understands that, but he did not state it openly. The Clause is for this purpose: The Wheat Commission should be enabled, even when the estimated average price has risen, let us suppose temporarily, to the standard price, to raise by way of quota certain small sums necessary for its continuing its administrative existence. That is the object of the words to which the hon. Member seems to take exception. I think the Committee will agree that, whatever may be individual views as to the remoteness or proximity of the contingency of the estimated average price rising to that of the standard price, when you are putting in machinery Clauses it is well to prevent, in that contingency, the financial existence of the Wheat Commission coming to an untimely end. I think the hon. Member will see that the words have a real value, although he has given them additional value by using them as a peg on which to hang an interesting dissertation on the future of wheat prices.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

We have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words:

"or may, if he is satisfied that the circumstances so require, by order direct that the liability to make quota payments other than those already accrued clue shall cease until a further order is made,"

but, as it has not been called, I must raise the point on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Power is given to the Minister in the middle of the year suddenly to cease charging quota payments at all. It seems to us that in those circumstances, if that power is retained, he may act very unequally as regards the supply of flour and possibly react on the farmer. As I understand the Clause it is intended to be brought into use only when Clause 3 fails to operate for some reason. It is not easy to understand why the Minister wants both of these powers, in the circumstances in which he has to operate the one or the other. In Clause 3, Subsection (5), it is stated:

"If at any time during a cereal year the Minister considers that, for the purpose of securing that the average amount of the quota payments which will have accrued due during the cereal year shall more nearly represent the sum mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section, it is expedient so to do, he may, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, by a subsequent order supersede the order theretofore in force under this Section as from the date of the subsequent order."

That is to say, he can vary the amount of the quota payment which has to be made in the second portion of the year. That variation, of course, can be down to nothing if he wants it. If it starts at being 2s. 6d. to 3s. per sack, it can fall to, nothing if in the middle of the year the Minister finds that too large a sum is being accumulated, or that there has been an alteration in the market conditions that requires a smaller sum to be found. In those circumstances it is very difficult to understand what it is that is wanted in Clause 7. The Minister has already power to reduce the quota payment at any period, down to nothing, and similarly when he comes to make the Order for the next cereal year, having examined the condition of the Wheat Fund, he can say that in the circumstances it is not necessary to raise any more money or, there being a deficiency, that the quota must be higher than the calculated figure.

8.0 p.m.

As regards the final words of Clause 7, it seems to us to be undesirable, in the middle of a cereal year, for the reasons stated at the beginning of the Clause, entirely to discontinue quota payments, because that may lead to people, when prices are rising, again gambling in what is likely to happen with the quota payment. If they think that at a certain period of the year the quota payment is likely to stop altogether, they may put off getting wheat imported, simply use up the stocks that are in the country, and delay their purchases until such time as they think the quota is going to fall. If the quota is likely to rise they will act the other way round. We suggest that it is not desirable to encourage any speculation of that sort unless it is absolutely necessary. We do not see the necessity for inserting this extra power under Clause 7, in addition to the power already conferred under Clause 3.

Division No. 120.]	AYES.	[8.3 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Christie, James Archibald
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Boyce, H. Leslie	Clarke, Frank
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Clarry, Reginald George
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Broadbent, Colonel John	Colfox, Major William Philip
Aske, Sir Robert William	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Colville, John
Atkinson, Cyril	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Conant, R. J. E.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Cook, Thomas A.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Browne, Captain A. C.	Cooke, Douglas
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Burgin, Dr, Edward Leslie	Craven-Ellis, William
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Caine, G. R. Hall-	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, G.)	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Bernays, Robert	Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Crossley, A. C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Blindell, James	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Bossom, A. C.	Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Dickie, John P.
Boulton, W. W.	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Donner, P. W.

The very purpose of Clause 7 is to enable the Minister, in lieu of prescribing the amount of quota payments, to prescribe during that year quota payments of such amounts as he considers expedient for those purposes. The Clause also gives the Minister power to direct that the liability to make quota payments other than those already accrued due shall cease until a further Order is made. I think that is quite clear. Another part of the Clause provides sufficient money to get the machinery into existence, but in any case the words which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has moved to leave out are essential in order that the Minister may make an Order directing that the liability to make further payments shall cease but without prejudice to any liability in respect of quota payments proved to be due. I think it is clear that those words are necessary to complete the arrangements which have been made, and on those grounds the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the reason is for separating these powers which seem to be a mere extension of the powers concerned by Clause 3, and which makes it more difficult to find them when looking through the Bill?

This Clause deals with the circumstances which arise when certain levels have been reached in price.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 41.

Drewe, Cedric	Levy, Thomas	Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Duggan, Hubert John	Lewis, Oswald	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Eales, John Frederick	Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunliffe-	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Eastwood, John Francis	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Robinson, John Roland
Elmley, Viscount	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Rosbotham, S. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)	Mabane, William	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Everard, W, Lindsay	McKie, John Hamilton	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Fermoy, Lord	McLean, Major Alan	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Fox, Sir Gifford	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Salmon, Major Isidore
Fuller, Captain A. O.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Maitland, Adam	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Petney)
Gillett, Sir George Master man	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Savery, Samuel Servington
Glossop, C. W. H.	Martin, Thomas B.	Scone, Lord
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Goff. Sir Park	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Gower, Sir Robert	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Greene, William P. C.	Mitcheson, G. G.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Grimston, R. V.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Stones, James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Storey, Samuel
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Munro, Patrick	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Hartland, George A.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Templeton, William P.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Nicholson. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Petersf'ld)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Nunn, William	Thompson, Luke
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	O'Connor, Terence James	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Horsbrugh, Florence	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ormiston, Thomas	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Pearson, William G.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Penny, Sir George	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Iveagh, Countess of	Petherick, M.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Jennings, Roland	Pike, Cecil F.	Weymouth, viscount
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.J
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Kimball, Lawrence	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ramsden, E.	Wise, Alfred R.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Wolmer, Rt. Hon Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred	Rea, Walter Russell	Wragg, Herbert
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Leckie, J. A.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Held, William Allan (Derby)	Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rest (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Batey, Joseph	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Parkinson, John Allen
Briant, Frank	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Price, Gabriel
Buchanan, George	Hirst, George Henry	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cape, Thomas	Holdsworth, Herbert	Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Janner, Barnett	Tinker, John Joseph
Cowan, D. M.	John, William	Wallhead, Richard C.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
navies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Groves.

Clause 8—(Provisions As To Millers' Quota Fund)

I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:

"and shall be laid before Parliament."

I will address myself to the points that really matter. Clause 8, Sub-section (1) reads as follows:

"(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established under the control and management of the Flour Millers' Corporation a fund called the "Millers' Quota Fund" into which shall be paid all moneys received by the Corporation, and out of which shall be defrayed all expenditure incurred by the Corporation."

Now I come to Sub-section (2) upon which my Amendment rests. It reads:

"(2) The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister."

I want to go a stage further than that. With my Amendment inserted the Sub-section will read:

"(2) The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister, and shall be laid before Parliament."

That is the passage upon which my argument will turn for about three or four minutes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) delighted us with a speech lasting for nearly two hours. I have never been guilty of speaking for longer than about half-an-hour or so. After all, this is a very important Clause. If hon. Members will turn to the Memorandum on the front page of the Bill, they will find that the only mention of any accountancy at all in connection with this Bill is to be found on page 2 of the Memorandum which reads as follows:

"The Wheat Commission will not be a Government Department, but provision is made for audit of their accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and a report by him to Parliament."

I want to raise two points. I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can tell us what is the prescribed form and what type of auditor is to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture. I have had a little experience in the work of accountancy. I have been looking through a list of the Members of the Government, and, although I have found that there are any number of bankers, financiers and lawyers among them, have not found a single person on the Government bench who knows anything about accountancy. I do not know whether they could add two and two correctly. Although the House of Commons includes a large number of solicitors and a goodly number of bankers, while the most enlightened trade unionists in the land, of course, are here, I have not come across anyone who has done any auditing on a large scale, or who claims to know very much about accountancy. I do not myself claim to be an accountant, but, as no one else can deal with the subject, I venture on the task with humility.

While all other items of the State's income and expenditure are to be laid before Parliament under this Bill, it is obvious, from the Bill as it now stands, that the Millers' Quota Fund account will not be laid before Parliament at all. Any transaction upon which the State puts its seal should be presented to Parliament. My experience has been that about 98 per cent. of every section of the community will do the right thing, but the law is always passed in order to secure that the 2 or 3 per cent. who always do wrong shall be brought up to the standard of honour that the others claim for themselves. Therefore, we say that the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament may see, not only how the business works from a political or agricultural point of view, but how the money is expended, how it is collected, and how it is handed over to the farmer.

There is also the consumer's point of view, and we want to know whether the farmers, the Flour Millers' Corporation and the other people connected with the business, are exploiting the consumer. If the right hon. Gentleman is in office—as I hope he will not be for very long—he will have to decide what shall be the prescribed form of accountancy. Is it to be a simple income and expenditure account? Is it to be a debtor and creditor account? Will it include a profit and loss account? Will it show a dividend to be paid to the shareholders? There is a further and more important point. There are in this country several organisations of auditors and accountants, and I can conceive that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to the question of an auditor approved by the Minister, may find himself in a difficulty at once. The oldest and most famous institution of auditors in this country is the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I should imagine that there would be no difficulty about the Minister prescribing at once that a properly qualified chartered accountant should audit the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation. Labour Ministers, Conservative Ministers, and National Government Ministers would all agree that a properly qualified chartered accountant might be an auditor in such a case. But would the right' hon. Gentleman approve of a public accountant as an auditor for this purpose; or would he approve of an incorporated accountant There are people who audit accounts who have no title at all to any claim that they should audit the accounts of some firms, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to bring the science of auditing, in connection with this Bill, up to the highest possible standard that can be secured.

I have been looking al; the hon. Member's Amendment, and I do not see that the question of auditing comes into it at all. The Amendment merely says that these accounts, which the Bill already says shall be audited, are to be laid before Parliament.

I bow to your Ruling at once. I would only say that the names of the auditors are always included in the balance sheet of a firm, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman, when he lays these papers before Parliament, as we desire, will not only have to present the accounts themselves, but the name of the auditor will have to be shown at the foot of the balance sheet.

But that will not be a sufficient peg upon which to hang a discussion as to who may be the auditor.

Then I am bound to try to find another one. Like yourself, Sir, I have been a member of the Committee on Procedure, and I will keep strictly within the limits of order as prescribed by you. We have had to complain that the accounts of the Beet Sugar Subsidy have never been presented to Parliament except as a whole. It is simply the gross item of the subsidy from the State that go into those accounts. They are audited by a State auditor, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General accepts the fact that they have been audited. Those accounts are laid before Parliament. The accounts of the approved societies of this country, also, are brought before Parliament, and there is an auditor's report once every five years showing the financial situation of every approved society in the country. The Government will not be doing their duty, and will not bring about a proper standard of honour in public affairs, unless they not only lay before Parliament the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation, but give some indication to the House as to how those accounts are assembled from the details. The accounts of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which is the largest miller in the land, can be brought before Parliament at any time without any difficulty, and the Cooperative Wholesale Society will be part of the Flour Millers' Corporation. While, apparently, several of the other accounts mentioned in this Bill will be laid before Parliament, it is not intended, I understand, that these detailed items shall be brought before Parliament at all. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts me, let me say again that the words of the very Sub-section which I am attacking indicate that that is the case. It provides that

"The accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund shall be kept in the prescribed form and shall be audited annually by an auditor approved by the Minister."

But it stops there. I cannot see a word in the Bill anywhere indicating how the operations of this corporation are to be brought to light. The right hon. Gentleman's argument will probably be that the State does not expend any money on this particular corporation. I would say, in reply, that wherever the State sanctions the expenditure of money, or the collection of money from one section of the community and the handing of it over to another section, especially if the accounts are audited by the approval of a Department of State, those accounts ought to be laid before Parliament. There is nothing to prevent this Bill from becoming law, and, when it becomes law, I should like to see that nothing is done in connection with the financial transactions under it that will offend the susceptibilities as regards honour of any section of the community of this country. One of the safeguards, therefore, for securing that everything is done clean and aboveboard in all these transactions is to accept the Amendment.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding words, that no one desires that anything should be hidden that ought to he disclosed and that we ought to be very careful in all these transactions to see that proper regard is had to adequate supervision. As far as the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation are paid by the Wheat Commission, they will be part of the expenses of that Commission, and they will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament, so that, as far as regards that side of the problem, every safeguard is provided. The only other account of the Flour Millers' Corporation will be that which is connected with the trading operations which they will carry out at the end of the season, in June and July, purchasing the crops that are left on the farms, which they are bound to do under the obligation which the Minister makes under the Order in Clause 1 (3). That is an ordinary business transaction, and I do not know that there is any public advantage to be gained by requiring the Corporation to say, in the accounts that are laid before Parliament, whether it has made a profit or a loss on that transaction. It really is an ordinary trading operation the results of which will accrue to or become a liability of every miller. As long as they carry out the Order which the Minister imposes, the question whether they make a profit or a loss on the transaction does not really affect anyone except the millers themselves and that is a matter within their own organisation and is an obligation which they have undertaken to observe and, as long as the obligation is carried out, I can see no justification for imposing upon the Government the laying of these special accounts, nor can I see any real advantage from the point of view of the supervision here. All that this House has any reason to be anxious about is whether the Order which the Minister has made for the purchase of those things has been carried out. The accounts for such part of it as comes directly under the Wheat Commission, and for which the Wheat Commission is responsible, will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will be laid before Parliament.

We are happy to find that the Minister is in agreement with us that we should be very careful in regard to matters of this kind, and especially in regard to accounts kept for the purposes of the Flour Millers' Corporation. We must always remember who the Flour Millers' Corporation are. It is a body to be set up to consist of

"a chairman and four other persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies as in his opinion represent the interests of millers."

8.30 p.m.

They appear very often in the Bill. They come in, first of all, in Clause 1. They come in on the ground floor and they appear in subsequent Clauses one by one until the very end. In Clause 1 they are to be given power to buy certain wheat. The Minister made light of that, but the amount of trading to, be done by them is not negligible. They are entitled to buy as much as 12½ per cent. of the annual crop and to pay the full standard price if they deem it necessary. The purchase price of the full quantity may well run to nearly £2,000,000 in a year. In Clause 3 the Wheat Commission is to lay down by-laws to regulate the manner in which the price of home-grown millable wheat brought from registered growers by the Flour Millers' Corporation shall be determined according to quality and market conditions by reference to the price specified in the Order. After getting general directions from the Wheat Commission, these people set themselves up as a responsible trading authority and buy and sell in their own sweet way—these four jolly millers, doing what they jolly well like so long as they are more or less working on the general lines submitted by the Wheat Commission. Again, we find that the Wheat Commission can make certain payments with the consent of the Flour Millers' Corporation. I find that in Clause 4 (3), the Flour Millers' Corporation giving its consent, being set up as a body superior to the Wheat Commission itself. This consent is to be given

"for the payment of such sums by that Corporation on behalf of registered millers and, if the Commission are satisfied that there is at any time a Corporation representative of the importers of flour, the like provision may, with the consent of that Corporation, be made with respect to the payment of such sums by that Corporation on behalf of importers of flour."

They have very extensive functions and all we ask is that, when this body has very large trading accounts—there is a large amount of trade being done, involving the carrying out of very delicate responsibilities—it is not sufficient that the fund should be audited by an auditor approved by the Minister. It is important enough that its accounts shall be presented at the end of the year. They may not necessarily be debated in the House but there will be an opportunity, if the accounts are submitted, for debating and checking the work done by the Flour Millers' Corporation, a body responsible only to millers, who are only representative of the millers and have no other interest in their mind and no responsibility to anyone else except the Flour Millers' Corporation. I think the Minister ought to come to an agreement with us on the Amendment, because there will be a great deal of suspicion. The farmers will be suspicious. The millers have looked after themselves, because they are strong enough. They tied the Minister up before the Bill was introduced. They have got their terms. Other interests have not been so influential. We hope the Minister will see to it that an annual statement of accounts, with details of the expenditure and income of the Millers' Quota Fund, shall be presented to the House and that we shall be privileged to see from time to time how this body performs its duties.

May I put one point which seems to me of some importance? I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says there is no public advantage achieved by the submission of these accounts to Parliament. I think it will be agreed that the general public is very deeply concerned in the matter and, after all, the House of Commons is not here to look after millers or wheat producers or any special section or interest of that sort. It is here mainly to look after the interests of the general public. It seems to me that the general public's interest, from the point of view of the Wheat Commission, is amply safeguarded. Their accounts will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will be reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. As I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), the Wheat Commission in certain respects will operate under the guidance or instructions of the Flour Millers' Corporation. Let us assume that the Auditor-General in due time comes before the Public Accounts Committee in order to give explanations for which the Public Accounts Committee may ask concerning his audit. A question may be asked of him by a member of the committee as to why this, that or the other thing was done, and the reply will be, "Oh, it was done under the advice or the instruction of the Flour Millers' Corporation." Surely, it is not an adequate answer to give to a Committee of this House that something was done under the instruction of this organisation, and that, having given that reply, there was nothing more to be said.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as the Committee know, there will be vast operations conducted by this corporation, and everyone knows that from time to time the House is presented with a volume dealing with trading accounts. I do not see why accounts ranging over such vast sums of money as £1,000,000 or 2,000,000 should not in the ordinary course of things be brought for review before the Committee specially set up by the House every year in order to review the expenditure of money authorised by the House, and in regard to a portion of which, indirectly anyhow, the House is specially concerned. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a very strong case for a review of the work of the Wheat Commission, and that the work of the Wheat Commission cannot be complete or entirely satisfactory unless you also have an adequate review, if possible, of the work of the Flour Millers' Corporation. If we could get that proposal accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, I think that we should thereby be safeguarding for the House complete control of the whole of the operations involved in the work both of the Wheat Commission and of the Flour Millers' Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman from that point of view ought to recon Sider the answer which he has already given.

We must have clearly in our minds how this thing will operate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, when these accounts are laid before Parliament, shall be in a position to give the fullest information upon everything which is material. I do not think that there is any doubt that that will be the case because the accounts of the Flour Millers' Corporation, as far as they are linked with the Wheat Commission—any transactions which are controlled indirectly between those two bodies—in every respect will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament.

Let us assume that they are subject to review. Who in due time, therefore, will appear before the Public Accounts Committee to give an account supplementary to that of the Auditor-General?

The provision is that the account will be laid, and I have no doubt that if anything further from the Auditor-General is required—and as it is the Department and the Minister who are responsible for certain orders in connection with this matter, and for the orders which are brought before the House—no doubt in the ordinary way the Department will be there to answer such questions as may be asked. As I understand it, the only thing which is not dealt with in this matter is the transaction which takes place at the close of the year, when, not through the Wheat Commission, but by a direct order of the Minister, the remaining stocks of wheat upon the farm up to 12½ per cent. are directed to be purchased at a price which is to be determined. Those transactions will have nothing to do with the Wheat Commission. They are responsibilities taken on under agreement by the millers. It is a transaction which they have taken upon themselves and are bound to carry out, and it is entirely a question between individual millers who have given that undertaking and really does not concern anything which touches or impinges upon the levies upon flour.

Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no real anxiety from the point of view of Parliament. It is true, of course, that our anxiety will be to see that the order of the Minister is carried out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I will look at this side of the problem very carefully between now and the Report stage. Frankly, I do not want to impose upon an outside body which is taking on this responsibility, the repercussion of which, whether it is profit or loss, is no concern of mine as long as the order is carried out, an unnecessary further liability, nor de I think that the Houses of Parliament are concerned with anything other than seeing that the order is carried out. But I repeat, I will go into the question very carefully between now and the Report stage.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that there is no public money whatever involved in the flour millers' quota fund?

No, Sir, not in this transaction. It is the latter part of the year transaction. Any accounts concerned with the funds of the quota under the Wheat Commission will come before the Auditor-General. The only thing which is not so provided for is that at the end of the season, which has no connection with the matter, which is clear of the Wheat Fund and purely a matter of profit and loss between the millers in the country and which is for themselves internally to settle.

Suppose the Auditor-General finds something wrong and something, which, if it had to do with an employer, it would be his duty to report upon. There is nothing that I can see here which imposes any duty upon him to report to the Minister.

The hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps was not in the Chamber at the time, but I have already pointed out that the question of the auditor and his duties does not arise on the Amendment. It is merely a question of whether the accounts shall be laid before Parliament or not.

It is particularly in connection with that point that I am asking the question. If they are not laid before Parliament, how is anybody to know whether anything is wrong with the accounts? If there were a provision somewhere that the auditor should report to the Minister, the Minister himself could see the accounts. I am pointing out that there is no provision, anywhere for anyone to see the accounts except the auditor, and there is no duty imposed upon the auditor to report if there is anything wrong. It seems, therefore, that unless some provision of that sort is made, there is a case for saying that the accounts ought to come before us.

I am pretty well satisfied with the statement made by the Minister, but I am not satisfied that we ought to withdraw the Amendment. The full particulars of the new venture ought to be placed before the House of Commons. There is much to be said in favour of the audit, but it is proposed practically to give plenary powers to the Flour Millers' Corporation, and, if they carry them out in conformity with the regulations laid down, there will be duly audited accounts which, according to the Flour Millers' Corporation, may be considered to be true accounts. But, with all due respect, I do not think that we ought to give to the Flour Millers' Corporation plenary powers to deal with something that is in the nature of a national experiment. If the Flour Millers' Corporation were a Department of this House it would be a different matter, but this scheme is something Which the Government have brought forward and in which the nation is vitally interested. We have the right to insist on the acceptance of our Amendment; otherwise, we ought to go to a vote.

We ask that these matters should be laid before Parliament. To whom would representations be made if there were defalcations? There is no corporation in the country that would have their accounts certified in the mariner in which the Government are asking that these accounts should be certified, and without being brought before the notice of the House. We ought to carry the Amendment. The Government have nothing to be afraid of in bringing before Parliament a detailed statement of accounts. There ought not to be any secrecy. Difficulties may arise with the farmers. Details ought to be given to the House of Commons, especially when we are dealing with things of such colossal magnitude. I am sure that the Audit Department will do the thing in a proper manner, and that the certification will be accurate, but that certification will be only a certification according to the power that is vested in a particular body to carry out its duties, and when it has carried out those duties it will have been made a close corporation, and we shall have no power to go into the question of details. Secrecy ought to go by the board. No one knows what this venture will mean. No one knows anything about the finance of it. There is no data to go upon. The Minister will be well advised to lay all the particulars before the House. The National Government seem to be making a close corporation of the Flour Millers' Corporation. We only ask that reasonable methods should be adopted for acquainting Parliament and the country with the facts.

As a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, I would say that if any outside auditor was appointed in these circumstances and anything was wrong, he would be bound to do his duty. If any public money was involved, he would certainly bring it to the notice of the Minister, who would feel that he would be justified in bringing it to the attention of Parliament.

Perhaps the hon. Member does not know of companies where they have not done that.

I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. In moving this Amendment, we cast no reflection upon any auditor or association of auditors. The right hon. Gentleman is not too certain of the actual application of the words in the Bill or of the words in the Amendment. Therefore, we think it will be much better if we give him an opportunity between now and the Report stage to re-examine the whole question in the light of the discussion. As he is willing to do that, we are willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, after the word "stocks," to insert the words:

"(including administrative expenses incurred by the corporation in connection therewith)."

The object of the Amendment is to provide that any administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in the purchase and disposal of the end-of-season stock by an Order made by the Minister under Clause 1 (3), shall be shown in a separate account, and, by consequential Amendments to Clause 9, shall not be paid by the Wheat Commission. As the administrative expenses will fall to be borne by the millers and will not be deducted from the deficiency payments to the growers, that emphasises the fact that the later period charges are being entirely borne by the millers.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of the Amendment is to make it quite certain that the whole of these administrative expenses will fall entirely upon the Flour Millers' Corporation and not upon the administrative expenses, under Clause 9 (1), which are to be paid by the Wheat Commission. I am not certain how the administrative expenses are to be distinguished. This Amendment refers to the administrative expenses incurred in connection with the purchase and disposal of end-of-season stock. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the administrative expenses for that particular item are to be distinguished from the general administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation? I presume that the same people will be administering it. Is it intended to have some separate allocation?

It will be simple for those who are dealing with this matter to keep the accounts separately. There will be the operations that will take place under an Order made by the Minister to deal with the 12½. per cent. It will be well known by those who are dealing with the matter that all these operations will have to be kept separate. They will be kept in separate accounts.

This Amendment deserves very serious consideration. This Clause has troubled me more than any other clause in the Bill. My difficulty is to see how the Millers' Corporation are to pay these administration expenses. The Bill, as drawn, is quite clear in Clause 9. The words there are wide enough to cover all the administration expenses including the expenses of buying and selling, but the Amendment provides that part of the administration expenses, which were intended to be borne by the Wheat Commission, should fall on the Millers' Corporation. If we look at the history of this fund we shall see if there is ever going to be any money in it. The Corporation is to consist of five persons, and starts without a penny. There is no provision for bringing any money into the fund. The first words you have are in Clause 8, Sub-section (3) which says that they shall have the power to borrow money; but it is a very limited power of borrowing. It is a power to borrow:

"such sums as may be required by them for the purchase of any stocks of wheat which they are required by an order made by the Minister to buy."

That cannot happen at the earliest until June, 1933, because no order can be made for them to buy anything until then, and it is only a power to borrow sufficient money for the purchase of any stocks of wheat. Look what they will have to do. The price they will have to pay is obviously going to be the top price, because it is a purchase between a willing seller and a willing buyer. It is going to be the top market price because you assume that they are going to buy; and the money they will have to borrow and pay will be on the highest scale. Having borrowed the money they pay it away in the purchase of the wheat, and then they have to undertake the selling of the wheat. They will be selling in an overbought market, because this is wheat which has not been absorbed by the market, otherwise it would not be there for purchase. Therefore, there are no willing buyers and they will have to sell at something less than the market price in order to induce unwilling purchasers to buy. Any business man will see that there is not the smallest prospect of their selling at a profit. There is the moral certainty that they will sell at a loss, and having realised the best price they possibly can and got a sum of money into their account their first duty is to repay the money that has been borrowed; and there will not be enough to do this. Certainly there will be nothing left with which to pay administration expenses. Those who originally drafted this Clause realised that probably there would be a loss because at the end of Sub-section (4) it is provided that:

"any loss shown by it the said accounts to have been incurred in any cereal year upon such sale or disposal as aforesaid shall be recoverable from millers in the like proportion."

9.0 p.m.

What is it that is recoverable from the millers? It is not the administration expenses. It is the amount of the loss incurred by the sale of the stock. Think what that means. We have heard large sums mentioned, but what ever the loss is it has to be divided amongst some hundreds of millers and recovered from them. What is going to be the expense of recovering vast numbers of small sums from a great number of millers all over the country? Someone will have to make up the accounts and send them out, and do the collecting, and it is a very ex- pensive matter; yet all these expenses are thrown upon a Corporation which has no means whatever of paying. Even if they recover from the millers the loss incurred in buying and selling they have no power of recovering administration expenses. As far as I can see this Corporation is bound to be insolvent from the start. They cannot realise sufficient to pay the amount borrowed, and if they are successful in recovering the loss in buying and selling from the millers there is no provision to enable them to recover their administration expenses, which will have to be borne by a Corporation which has nothing. Who is going to loan money to the Corporation in these circumstances? And on what terms will they be able to borrow money? They have no resources. They have no Government guarantee behind them; and I cannot see where they are going to borrow the money. At what rate of interest will they be able to borrow money? The question of the solvency of this fund needs far more serious consideration than it has received. It is a step in the wrong direction to take part of the expenses which were to be borne by the Wheat Commission and throw them upon an insolvent fund which can never be in a position to pay.

I quite appreciate the argument submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) and there seems to be no reply to it. But despite that fact we welcome the Amendment. Originally the consumer was to meet all the expenses of the Wheat Commission and the Millers' Corporation, and we agree that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a slight casement of the burden on the consumer. The millers will have to pay their own expenses of buying and selling. I do not agree that the interpretation submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham is the only interpretation that can be read into this Clause. If the Flour Millers' Corporation have the power to borrow such sums as they may require for the purchase of any stocks of wheat there is nothing in the Clause to confine them to the month of June in which to exercise these borrowing powers. I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member that this may not include administration expenses but I am quite certain that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) could argue that it would include administration expenses in the buying and selling of this stock.

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I thought his point was that the Millers' Corporation would start the year with no funds available; that, as the first Order could not be made until the end of the cereal year, they would be for 12 months without any funds at all, and, that, when the end of the cereal year arrived, and the Minister issued an Order insisting upon the Millers' Corporation purchasing 12½ per cent. of the surplus output, then and only then, their borrowing powers would come into operation. The hon. and learned Member suggests that they will be able to borrow such sums as will be necessary to cover the buying and selling, but not to provide administrative expenses. That I understood to be the hon. and learned Member's point but I submit that the words "shall have power to borrow such sums as may be required" are all-inclusive and would cover the point referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I submit that those words would permit the Millers' Corporation to borhow all such sums as may be required at the end of the cereal year, provided that the Minister has embodied in one of his regulations permission for the Corporation to obtain the sums necessary for administrative purposes.

We recognise that this Amendment is well-intentioned, and we readily support it. We see no reason why a Millers' Corporation who have been brought together to perform for themselves a real lucrative piece of business should invite the consumers of bread to pay their administrative expenses. The Minister may be charged by some of his colleagues in days to come with being responsible for forming this fund. We have heard about a certain political party being no longer a party but a fund. It may be argued in future that the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill formed a fund out of which came the co-operative organsation which was the starting point of the nationalisation of the milling industry and so forth. From that point of view we see value in the Clause and in the Amendment. We have no apprehensions as to the Millers' Corporation being able to carry on their good work. We welcome the Amendment of the Minister as at least enabling the Corporation to pay some part of the administrative expenses during the time they are carrying out their duties. Since the millers will be in a national combine and will be called upon annully to purchase a certain amount of wheat which they know they can always dispose of, whether in poultry food, or wheat meal, or cattle food or for some other purpose, I am sure they will not buy that wheat at a price which they know is going to result in a loss to themselves. Their profits over a long period of time indicate that they know how to conduct their business. They have been conducting their business profitably on individual lines for such a long period that I am convinced, that when they are brought together as a Millers' Corporation, and are co-operating, there will be no doubt about the profitable nature of the business which this Bill will enable them to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 9—(Provisions As To Administrative Expenses)

I beg to move, in page 14, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1).

The question of the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation which is dealt with in this Clause is a little complicated. We have already had an Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to administrative expenses incurred by the corporation in connection with the purchase and disposal of stocks. I do not know exactly what will be the other administrative expenses "incurred for the purposes of the Act" by the corporation. I suppose that in order to find out exactly what those expenses would be one must look to the Second Schedule of the Bill. There we find that the corporation is to have power to hold land, for instance, and that it has to make arrangements for the registration of all millers of flour who make application, and so forth. I can understand that if we are setting up a big milling trust, if this corporation is going to be the instrument for unifying the whole operation of milling in this country, there may be administrative expenses but we do not know exactly what these "other administrative expenses" are to be. I presume that, at all events, it will be necessary for the corporation to have officials. But when you are setting up machinery whereby you are going to solidify into a trust a large portion of the milling business, I cannot for the life of me see why the expense should be borne by the purchasers of bread and flour. That is what happens if you make the expenses payable by the Wheat Commission.

The right hon. Gentleman's last Amendment as I say dealt merely with administrative expenses in connection with the purchase of stocks. He would simplify the whole Bill if he cut out Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 9 as we are asking him to do. We have had no explanation of why the expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation should be borne by the purchasers of bread. It may be possible to make out a, case for subsidising the farmer at the expense of the body of consumers, but I do not see why it should pay for the Flour Millers' Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman has already rejected an Amendmnt which we brought forward with a view to making it perfectly clear that the verbal agreement with the millers already referred to should be written down in black-and-white, and made enforceable, and I have no doubt that under this Bill a certain amount of money is going to stick in the hands of the flour millers. But they ought to be made to bear the expenses of their own corporation. I would like the right hon. Gentleman therefore to explain two things. First, what will be the nature of these administrative expenses and what is the amount likely to be; secondly, why should the expenses of the flour millers be borne by the consumer?

I may be wrong, but should not the word "also" come in after the word "and" in line 3, so that it would read:

"Subject to the provisions of this section the administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act by the Flour Millers' Corporation and also, if by-laws"—

and so on. Otherwise, what does the Subsection mean?

The expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation will fall under two heads. First of all, there are the primary administrative expenses, which will be those incurred to enable them to comply with their obligations under Clause 1, Sub-section (3), to buy unsold stocks of wheat if so ordered by the Minister. That is what we have been discussing just now. It is not intended that these administrative expenses shall he paid by the Wheat Commission, and Amendments have already been moved in Clause 8, Sub-section (3), and there is a subsequent Amendment to be moved in this Sub-section, the effect of which will be to exclude such expenses from the expenses under this Sub-section. The other necessary administrative expenses of the corporation will include those connected with the registration of millers, which is part of this scheme, under the third paragraph of the Second Schedule, and the election of members of the corporation, under the sixth paragraph of the Second Schedule. It is intended that these costs, which will not be large, shall be payable by the Wheat Commission as comprising an essential element in the machinery of the Bill. I think it is clear that those should properly be so charged, because they are essential to the setting up of the machinery.

In addition, the Wheat Commission might, under by-laws to be approved by the Minister, under Clause 4, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), enter into arrangements with the Flour Millers' Corporation whereby the corporation might accept responsibility, first of all, for arranging for the audit of the deliveries of flour, and, secondly, for the collection of the relevant quota payments due to the Commission. Both those headings may or may not be made, and they may or may not prove to be acceptable to the Millers' Corporation and the Minister, but if they are, the expenses which are properly incurred by the corporation would be payable by the Commission, which would otherwise have been relieved of that amount of expenditure.

Clause 9, Sub-section (2), provides that the Flour Millers' Corporation shall first submit to the Wheat Commission estimates of their administrative expenditure for approval. They have to frame estimates and have them submitted for approval, and under Clause 9, Sub-section (4), these estimates will form part of the estimates of their own administrative expenses, which the Wheat Commission are required to submit to the Minister for approval, and no administrative ex- penses may be incurred by the Wheat Commission except in accordance with the estimates approved by the Minister. The Bill does not actually require flour importers to form an association for the purpose of assuming collective responsibility for quota payments, but if such an association is formed and approved, it will be subject to by-laws made by the Commission, with the Minister's approval, under Clause 4, Sub-section (3), and its administrative expenses will come before the Wheat Commission and the Minister for approval in the same manner as the expenses of the Millers' Corporation. There is thus, I think the House will agree, complete control by the Commission and the Minister of the administrative expenses of the Flour Millers' Corporation, and indeed of any association of the importers, if such is formed, and these will be payable by the Wheat Commission. The control, I think, will be adequate and will ensure that only such expenditure as is approved by the Minister and will lead to the satisfactory administration of the fund shall actually be incurred.

My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has asked me whether I think the wording of Sub-section (1) will adequately cover what we desire to achieve. I think it does, though, of course, like all drafting problems, it is open to question from one angle or another. All that I can say to my Noble Friend is that I have been advised by a qualified draftsman upon this subject, but that I will draw the attention of the draftsman to the criticism which has been made, and that we will look at it, and if we think it can be improved and yet retain what we believe to be desirable, we will adopt that method. Under the circumstances, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

As regards the last point, I think the right hon. Gentleman has the right words here, because if the word "also" were added, it would not read sense, as I read it. Because of the very large sentence included between the commas, it would make rather a clumsy drafting sentence. May I not suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this Clause was quite sensible so long as it was provided that the w hole of the Flour Millers' Corporation administrative ex- penses should be paid by the Wheat Commission? One can understand that this rather elaborate procedure may then have been necessary, but now that he has taken out the provision that 99.9 per cent, of those expenses will be paid by the Flour Millers' Corporation themselves, is it really worth leaving in the whole of this clumsy procedure, in order to deal with the 0.1 per cent. that is left over?

The two items that he has mentioned, the register and the election of some members of the corporation, could hardly occupy the time of one lady typist for more than about three hours in the year, and is it really worth while that there should be a budget statement as to the lady typist's hours and that it should be submitted to the Wheat Commission, that there should be an arbitration before the Minister as to whether it is right, and, if it is not right, that the Wheat Commission should alter it? Will not the right hon. Gentleman do what we suggest is the sensible thing to do, having himself, as regards what obviously is the vast bulk of the administrative

Division No. 121.]	AYES.	[9.26 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)	Ganzoni, Sir John
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Glossop, C. W. H.
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Charlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Christie, James Archibald	Golf, Sir Park
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Clarry, Reginald George	Gower, Sir Robert
Aske, Sir Robert William	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Colville, John	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Atkinson, Cyril	Conant, R. J. E.	Greene, William P. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cook, Thomas A.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Cooke, Douglas	Grimston, R. V.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Craven-Ellis, William	Guy, J. C. Morrison
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Crossley, A. C.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Bernays, Robert	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hartland, George A.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Davies, Ma], Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Borodale, Viscount	Denman Hon. R. D.	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Bossom, A. C.	Donner, P. W.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Boulton, W. W.	Drewe, Cedric	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Duggan, Hubert John	Holdsworth, Herbert
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Eastwood, John Francis	Horsbrugh, Florence
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Howard, Tom Forrest
Broadbent, Colonel John	Elmley, Viscount	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Iveagh, Countess of
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Everard, W. Lindsay	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Fermoy, Lord	Jennings, Roland
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Castle Stewart, Earl	Fox, Sir Gifford	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Fuller, Captain A. G.	Kerr, Hamilton W.

expenses, decided that the corporation are to pay them themselves, and say, "Let the other little bit go in"? Nobody could object, and it would save the whole of this very complicated procedure as regards budgets and approvals and so on. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would save money if he did it, and that the Flour Millers' Corporation would bless him for leaving them alone.

The Sub-section, as it stands, may be in legal phraseology, but, from the point of view of pure grammar, I am still convinced that it is wrong. That may not be a desideratum which should be sought when drafting an Act of Parliament which is to be interpreted in the courts, but, though I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his promise to look into the matter, I do think it is desirable to ensure as far as possible the observance of grammar in an Act of Parliament.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241: Noes, 39.

Kimball, Lawrence	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. sir Hugh	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ormiston, Thomas	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Soper, Richard
Law, Sir Alfred	Pearson, William G.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Penny, Sir George	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Leckie, J. A.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Petherick, M.	Stones, James
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Storey, Samuel
Levy, Thomas	Pike, Cecil F.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Lewis, Oswald	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Templeton, William P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Loyat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ramsden, E.	Thompson, Luke
Mabane, William	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Mac An drew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)	Rea, Walter Russell	Thorp, Linton Theodore
McCorquodale, M. S.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
McEwen Captain J. H. F.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McKie, John Hamilton	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
McLean, Major Alan	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McLean, Or. W. H. (Tradeston)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Maitland, Adam	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Marjoribanks, Edward	Robinson, John Roland	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Hopner, Colonel L.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Martin, Thomas B.	Rosbotham, S. T.	Weymouth, Viscount
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Runge, Norah Cecil	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mitcheson, G. G.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Moreing, Adrian C.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Salmon, Major Isidore	Wise, Alfred R.
Moss, Captain H. J.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Muirhead, Major A. J.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Womersley, Walter James
Munro, Patrick	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Savery, Samuel Servington	Wragg, Herbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Scone, Lord
Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
North, Captain Edward T.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin	Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Blindell.
Nunn, William	Skelton, Archibald Noel
O'Connor, Terence James	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert
Attlee, Clement Richard	George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Lunn, William
Batey, Joseph	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Briant, Frank	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hirst, George Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Cowan, D. M.	John, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that the administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in connection with the purchase and sale or disposal of any stocks of wheat which they are required by an Order made by the Minister to buy shall not be payable by the Wheat Commission."

This Amendment speaks for itself. It is connected with a matter already dealt with in Clause 8, page 13, line 19, which requires the administrative expenses incurred by the Flour Millers' Corporation in connection with the purchase and sale or disposal of unsold stocks of wheat under an Order made by the Minister to be kept in a separate account. These expenses will not be payable by the Wheat Commission, and are therefore not deductible from the deficiency payments.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 14, line 8, to leave out Subsection (2).—[ Mr. Attlee.]

With regard to this Amendment, I shall be glad if the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) will explain its purpose. I take it that it is consequential on the one that has been discussed.

It is consequential, and I do not move it.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after the word "year," to insert the words:

"being expenses which are so payable as aforesaid."

This is consequential upon the Amendment which we have just passed.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, to leave out the words "whether before or."

The implications of this Amendment can be seen very quickly. Sub-section (3, a) states

"any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation."

We seek to delete the words "whether before or" for we see involved in this paragraph all sorts of uncanny expenditure which hitherto has never been embodied in any Parliamentary Measure. It is well known that some sort of quota scheme was in contemplation 12 months ago. All sorts of work was done by departmental officials and by the ex-Minister of Agriculture in attempting to produce a wheat quota scheme which could be made applicable. We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the expenditure incurred during the past 12 months by his departmental officials and the people with whom the ex-Minister and the present Minister of Agriculture came into contact during the discussions, are to be included under this paragraph? It is not unfair to argue that, if these words are carried to a logical conclusion the expenses of every interview which the Minister has had with millers, farmers and accountants, and indeed with every section of the community with whom he may have had any conversations, can be met.

We see the possibility of all the expenses of the ex-Minister being paid, since we understand that the taxpayer is not to be called upon to meet any expenses at all. Before the right hon. Gentleman produced the Bill he must have consulted Customs officials for the purpose of drafting Clause 5. All the expenditure with regard to those conversations will form part of the expenditure in bringing this Bill to the House of Commons. The words of the paragraph clearly imply that the expenses of very first conversations that ever took place with millers, farmers, bakers middlemen and merchants can be included. If that is not what the Minister intends, it is easy to remedy the difficulty by deleting the words suggested. If the expenses of the millers, the farmers and of every section of the community who in any way contributed towards producing the Bill are to be met, the expenses for the first year will be abnormal, and the first year's deficiency payment will be reduced to a small minimum.

Such retrospective legislation for the payment of administrative expenses is quite unusual. We are not unwilling that all expenses incurred from the passing of the Act shall be borne by the consumers of bread, but we are unwilling to allow all the expenses incurred by all sorts of officials and interests during the past several months while the Bill has been in course of construction. Our reading of the language in this paragraph is that all the expenses incurred will form part of the expenses to be met out of the quota payments. In that case, we can see that the deficiency payments will be reduced very considerably, because of the large increase over and above what is contemplated as the normal expenses. If these words must remain, there should be some words limiting the period of the retrospective payments, and some limiting terms to indicate to whom the payments are to be made. Otherwise, the words are so wide that no one will know where the expenses are to stop.

I think it may shorten the discussion if I explain that there is no intention on the part of the Government to do anything such as the hon. Gentleman fears, nor would the Minister certify anything of that kind. We see a very wide and clear distinction between the phrases "bringing the Bill before the House of Commons" and "bringing the Act into operation," and the words in the Bill are "bringing the Act into operation." It so happens that this is the only Sub-section which directly and mainly affects my own Department. The principal object of inserting the words "whether before or after" is that the Minister may, without delay, certify expenditure in connection with getting the necessary office accommodation, through the Office of Works, for the Wheat Commission, together with a certain amount of office furniture and stationery, so that the moment the Wheat Commission is appointed and the Orders have been issued by the Minister there will be no delay in beginning operations.

While I readily accept the statement of the intentions of the Government, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the last two lines of the Memorandum he will see that it states:

"No charge upon the Exchequer or local rates will be created by the Bill."

If that is the case, clearly the expenses incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's Department and the Ministry of Agriculture will have to be met from the only source from which such expenses can be met if they are not to be a charge upon either the Exchequer or the rates. Where will all the money for the expenses incurred in the production of the Bill be found? That point, at least, calls for explanation. It seems to me that any expenses incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's Department or the Minister of Agriculture could be regarded as expenditure for the purpose of bringing the Act into being.

The hon. Member reads the explanatory Memorandum of the Bill as if it were a part of the Clauses which will eventually be the Act. Of course, that is not so. The word "Bill" is used in the Memorandum, which explains the general contents of the Bill. What is perfectly clear is that there will be no charge on the taxes or the rates to meet this expenditure upon office accommodation, furniture and stationery for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, and it will be met out of the Wheat Fund. The Minister, upon the establishment of the Wheat Commission, will earmark the necessary preliminary expenditure upon bringing the Act into operation.

The right hon. Gentleman has cleared up this matter to a, certain extent, but I would point out that we are being asked to depend to a great extent on good intentions. In a speech delivered yesterday we had a considerable disquisition upon good intentions, their use and abuse, by an expert on the subject. We are here asked to do something which is not usually done in a Bill; we are providing that certain payments shall be made and also providing a special means of taxation. This is analogous to the case of the Road Fund. We are providing for certain things to be done and for certain people to bear the expense, in this case the consumers. The Clause refers to expenditure

"certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, in bringing the Act into operation."

The right, hon. Gentleman says that is not their intention, and I do not suppose it is their intention, to include this other expenditure which has been referred to.

The expenditure would not be certified.

Yes, but at the moment the over-riding object of this Government is to secure economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will try to get every expense he can taken off the taxpayer in his Budget and put on to the consumers, and here will be a chance for him to do so. Under the Clause as it stands a great deal of the cost of the Ministry of Agriculture and all these elaborate negotiations with millers—any number of meetings, refreshments, and all that kind of thing—can be held to have been necessary to bring the Act into operation. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to provide housing accommodation and stationery for the Wheat Commission, let him say so, and let us have a Fourth Schedule setting it out.

I regard this Amendment as a very important one. Whether or not it is the intention of the Minister to abuse this power, the Clause as it is worded does permit him to charge certain expenditure in promoting the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, let us read it:

"Any expenditure certified by the Minister to have been incurred, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in bringing this Act into operation."

[HON. MEMBERS: "This Act."] I suggest that this is a very dangerous procedure to introduce. Many Ministers have held office who are fanatics. I think there are some on the Treasury Bench now. According to this Clause, a Minister could incur expenditure on some ideal he might have which Parliament has not sanctioned, and put that expenditure on to the fund. Meetings have been held between the Minister and farmers, supporters of the National Government, and other people associated in the promotion of this Measure. This procedure was not adopted when the Coal Mines Act was passed and a subsidy was given to the mining industry. It was definitely stated that no subsidy should be paid or expenditure incurred upon machinery to operate that Act until the Measure had actually been passed by Parliament; and to give a Minister power to certify expenditure to come out of the fund before the Measure is in operation is a very dangerous proceeding. It is a retrospective payment in respect of negotiations that took place before Parliament gave consent to the Measure, and is a dangerous proceeding.

Not only is it dangerous in the case of the Wheat Bill, but it may form a dangerous precedent, because there may some a time when we shall occupy the benches opposite—I think there will—and we could encourage this procedure with, probably, beneficial results to our party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But we have never encouraged, and I hope that we shall never encourage as long as I am a Member of the party, propaganda built on fraud. This is an agreement to make provision for expenditure incurred on negotiations behind the scenes in promoting a Bill that puts a tariff on the loaf of the poorest of the people. We say that it is a very dangerous procedure, and we want to keep even the National Government straight as far as we can.

I rise only for the purpose of seeing that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has a quiet night. There is really no difficulty about this at all, if we keep clearly in mind two quite different words having quite different meanings in the English language. One is the word "existence" and the other is operation. "If the Clause had said that the Minister was to have the power to certify expenditure which had been incurred in bringing this Act into existence, there would have been much point in the observations of the hon. Member, but this Sub-section is perfectly correctly drafted and it provides quite plainly and in quite clear language that what is to be dealt with by the Minister's certificate is expenditure which is incurred in bringing the Act into operation. We have heard the Minister's explanation as to what is proposed to be certified under that provision. It is quite plain that the Minister has no power at all to certify expenditure which had been incurred in bringing the Act into existence, but, once it is passed, those things which he has done in order to see that it may be speedily brought into operation, so that the whole scheme can function, can be certified by him. With this explanation perhaps the hon. Member will realise that there is no great constitutional principle involved at all.

A Noble Lord told us a few minutes ago, as regards grammar, that in English it was quite correct, but in the drafting of Bills it would most likely be incorrect. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said exactly the opposite!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken states what it does mean, and I have to get back to English to find out whether the legal meaning is correct. I find here the expression "any expenditure." I imagine that in English that means all expenditure, subject to one provision which says "if certified by the Minister to have been incurred." To my mind "any" means "all." Therefore it would be quite sufficient if a certificate came along from the Minister to say that expenditure had been incurred; any expenditure would be absolutely correct. I am not giving a legal definition, but an English definition. I take it that any expense that would be incurred before the Act came into operation, unless this deletion was made, would be a charge, but that with the deletion made it could not be a charge.

Let us get away from legal jargon and get down to rock bottom and know what is really meant. If it is the purpose of the Minister to cover "any expenditure," that is all expenditure, let us know what is the expenditure that he wishes to cover. In the name of common sense let us know from what data he wants us to start. If he wants to cover any speci- fied time let us know. We all know that in bringing anything forward expense must be incurred. Let us know what is the expense to be charged, how it is to be charged and whether this is to cover everything appertaining to this Bill. On the one side there is the legal aspect, and then from the same bench comes a contradiction, and we are told that we really do not understand what we are talking about. One can toss a penny up and it is always a double-headed penny. Without any legal phraseology what does the Minister mean by "any expenditure"? To my mind he wants to include retrospective expenditure. I want to know how far back he wishes to go. Can he give us a time limit?

10.0 p.m.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that the operative word here is "operation," and that this expenditure is to be incurred in bringing the Act into operation. But how is the Act to be put into operation? Are the expenses merely such as the First Commissioner of Works told us, buildings and stationery and stamps and ink? Is that all that is meant by expenditure? It is a very complicated Bill and I want to know. Does it include the printing and publishing of pamphlets in plain English explaining to the various parties exactly what the Act means? Does it mean the expenditure on lectures by grammarians, noble or otherwise, to meetings of farmers explaining what the different provisions mean? Does it include the expenses incurred by lecturers in getting away from these meetings of infuriated farmers, driven off their heads by the complicated explanations given to them as to what the Clauses mean? We want some explanation from the Minister. The Clauses are very loosely drafted, and in bringing forward a Sub-section of this sort we think that the Minister has acted in a very casual way, especially at a time of national economy. It is essential that we get a serious explanation from the Minister now.

I do not want to weary the Minister by talking about certifying, but I am alarmed at what the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has said. I accept his statement as to the meaning of this proposal in law. If that is so, then the ex- penditure which the Minister is going to certify is, apparently, something which he undertook in order to bring an Act into operation before it had been passed by this House. That seems to me to be a monstrous thing. I have never heard it suggested that before the approval of this House has been obtained in regard to a Measure steps are being taken to put it into operation. That is really what is being done. If this were expenditure to bring the Act into existence including things preparatory and necessary documents, it would be quite another matter.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Labour Minister of Education, did exactly the same thing in the case of the Education Bill?

I do not know that he ever put the Act into operation.

But the money was expended.

Then I think he was wrong. I am concerned more with the idea that it is apparently becoming the practice to put Acts into operation before the House of Commons has adopted them. If the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater is correct, then the Minister has already put this Act into operation, and has incurred expenditure in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman is now asking the Committee to pass that as being a proper charge on the Wheat Fund. We certainly protest against any such grossly unconstitutional proceeding.

I think that these indignant speeches are slightly overdone. May I remind the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the last Government, in the case of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, did exactly the same thing that we propose to do here. Let me be quite frank with the Committee. I do not want to ask for anything which is improper, nor am I asking this Committee to sanction any extravagant, wild expenditure, but bon. Members will realise that we are dealing with a problem, the urgency of which is most important. As soon as this Measure goes through both Houses of Parliament, which cannot be until after Easter, there lies ahead for those responsible for this work duties of very great importance, and it is essential that urgent steps should be taken to make the working of the Measure as simple and easy as possible. It is solely for that reason that I desire to have the power to authorise and approve the drawing up of regulations, to try to get things in real working order, and to make arrangements which are necessary to make the Act work.

I am not interested in this question as an expert on grammar or on law, but I think an extraordinary position has been taken up by the Minister. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is incurring certain expenditure which the House has not authorised in anticipation of a Bill that this House has not yet passed; he is trusting that the House will put the Bill through, and that it will also be put through another place. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill which got slightly mangled in another place. I do not know whether any expenditure under that Bill will have to be met by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that is one danger in front of you. The House of Lords may reject this Bill. When I heard some of the speeches of the representatives of the agricultural interests, I thought that perhaps the Lords might have a go at this Bill, because they represent agriculture.

There is another and a greater danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is on the warpath—horrible thought—and during the Easter recess he

Division No. 122.]	AYES.	[10.14 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Conant, R. J. E.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Cook, Thomas A.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Cooke, Douglas
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)	Broadbent, Colonel John	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Craven-Ellis, William
Aske, Sir Robert William	Browne, Captain A. C.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Crossley, A. C.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Caine, G. R. Hall-	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Donner, P. W.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Drewe, Cedric
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Carver, Major William H.	Duggan, Hubert John
Bernays, Robert	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Eastwood, John Francis
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Edmondson, Major A. J.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Elmley, Viscount
Borodale, Viscount	Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Bossom, A. C.	Christie, James Archibald	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Boulton, W. W.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Colman, N. C. D.	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Colville, John	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

may be in communication with the Liberal associations. Then the dreaded moment will have come, and the Liberal Members of the Cabinet of all the talents will break up. Then who are you to leave to pay for it? We come in with a big majority and we shall be called upon to meet the iniquitous expenditure of the right hon. Gentleman. In view of all the political uncertainties, first of the House of Lords, and secondly of this tottering Government, whose existence now depends upon whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—who has now taken the oath and who has got 10 days to work his will outside—I think the House had better accept this proposal. Hon. Members opposite may get a surcharge, and if they happen to be the representatives of a local authority, they would be in the cart, like me. The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater knows a good deal about this business, and I accept what he has said. I think this is what he had in mind when he was so anxious to prove that there was nothing in it. There is a good deal more in it than the hon. and learned Member thinks. I repeat that first the House of Lords may throw out this Measure, and, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs may throw the Liberals out of the Government, and then where will you be?

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 41.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Mabane, William	Rothschild, James A. de
Everard, w. Lindsay	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Fox, Sir Gifford	McCorquodale, M. S.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Fuller, Captain A. G.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ganzoni, Sir John	McKie, John Hamilton	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	McLean, Major Alan	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Salmon, Major Isidore
Glossop, C. W. H.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Maitland, Adam	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Goff, Sir Park	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Gower, Sir Robert	Marjoribanks, Edward	Savery, Samuel Servington
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Scone, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Martin, Thomas B.	Selley, Harry R.
Greene, William P. C.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Grimston, R. V.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mitcheson, G. G.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Moreing, Adrian C.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Hanley, Dennis A.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)
Hartland, George A.	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Soper, Richard
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Munro, Patrick	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Stones, James
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W.G. (Peterst'ld)	Storey, Samuel
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Horsbrugh, Florence	North, Captain Edward T.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Howard, Tom Forrest	Nunn, William	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	O'Connor, Terence James	Sutcliffe, Harold
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Tate. Mavis Constance
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Templeton, William P.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Pearson, William G.	Thompson, Luke
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Penny, Sir George	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Iveagh, Countess of	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Petherick, M.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.	Pike. Cecil F	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Jennings, Roland	Pybus, Percy John	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Kimball, Lawrence	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Wells, Sydney Richard
Law, Sir Alfred	Ramsden, E.	Weymouth, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Leckie, J. A.	Rea, Walter Russell	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Levy, Thomas	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lewis, Oswald	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Wise, Alfred R.
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Womersley, Walter James
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Robinson, John Roland	Wragg, Herbert
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Rosbotham, S. T.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Commander Southby and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Batey, Joseph	Groves, Thomas E.	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Briant, Frank	Grundy, Thomas W.	Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Price, Gabriel
Buchanan, George	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cape, Thomas	Hirst, George Henry	Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Holdsworth, Herbert	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Dagqar, George	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	John.

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price), to leave out paragraph (b), is covered by a previous decision of the Committee. The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to leave out paragraph (e), is out of Order, as it would require a Financial Resolution.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 10, to leave out the second word "Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "Commons House of Parliament."

It is a rather remarkable coincidence that the more important Amendments to the Bill fall to me to be moved. I think, however, it is a coincidence; it is not because I know very much about the Measure that I have been asked to move any Amendment at all, but I will do my very best. I have, however, the consolation that I seem to know as much about it as anyone else, and, consequently, any mistake that I may make may not be found out. Sub-section (4) says:

"The Wheat Commission shall, not less than one month before the beginning of each cereal year, prepare an estimate of their administrative expenses during that year and submit the estimate in such form as may he required by the Minister for approval by the Minister."

I think that is giving too much power to the Minister. The object I have in view is to raise what hon. and learned Gentlemen have been talking about all day—a real, definite constitutional issue. I am not learned in the law. Nobody would believe me if I said that I was. I have been in this House long enough to see two or three things happen. I was very much disturbed in regard to one Bill, and I want to give the history of that Bill as an illustration of what is happening practically under all Governments in this country. Hon. Members will notice that we are setting up under the present Bill a Wheat Commission, and once we have set up that Commission and passed this Bill into law, Parliament will have practically finished with the whole of the transaction. In fact it is a very important factor in the Bill we are now discussing. Let me remind hon. Members of what has already happened. I was here when the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up, and at that time everybody thought that Parliament would be entitled to discuss the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation in detail. We found out later on that we could not do so. I also remember the time when the Carlisle liquor scheme was passed through this House.

Hear, hear!

I am sure that I have one supporter, anyway. I will not go into the pros and cons of the liquor trade.

Why not?

It is a fact that Parliament_ passed Measures dealing with the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Carlisle liquor scheme and handed the authority and control of those two institutions over to committees, and, in fact, Parliament has practically lost control over the whole of their operations. Let me give one or two more illustrations. There is the Port of London Authority.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he does not think that the board set up to deal with the Carlisle liquor trade has done splendid work?

The hon. Gentleman is only entitled to mention the Carlisle liquor scheme to show that Parliament has abrogated its powers, but it is not in order to discuss the merits or demerits of the Liquor Control Board.

Is not an hon. Member entitled to illustrate the need for this board to be either within or without Parliamentary control, or to argue the success or non-success of such a body, to give an illustration of how successful it can be?

If we were to discuss the Carlisle Liquor Board, the discussion might go on for the rest of the evening, and it would be far apart from this Bill.

I am entirely with the Deputy-Chairman, and I shall follow his orders to the last word. [Interruption.] My views about the Carlisle scheme are not germane to the issue this evening.

You introduced it.

10.30 p.m.

As I said, we are merely parting with powers under the Bill, and we shall never be able to recover them. It is a very important point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind. I will give another illustration. I remember the Betting Control Board. I was on the Committee upstairs. [Interruption.] I have never put a shilling on a horse in my life. When I was on the Standing Committee upstairs I felt positive that every Member of the Committee was under the impression that when we were giving power to the Racecourse Betting Control Board the operations of that board would come before Parliament, and that we should be able to discuss them. I have asked on several occasions from more than one Government whether we could discuss the operations of that board, and on all occasions we have been denied that opportunity. Therefore, we say that unless the Government accept our Amendment the Wheat Commission will be entirely outside the control of Parliament. On an issue like this, where we are asking the consumers to give money to the bakers, the bakers to give money to the flour millers, and the flour millers to give money to the farmers, the operations of the Wheat Commission ought to be subject to Parliamentary control.

We have been helping the Government to put this Bill into shape and I am certain that had it not been for our efforts it would not be workable in some particulars. I will give another example in support of my case—the Electricity Control Board. In spite of Conservative domination in Governments, and the Labour party being in office on occasion, we are definitely developing in this country separate bodies controlling the affairs of the nation, without any Parliamentary control. We ought to be very careful what we do in this matter. I am afraid that once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and we try to put questions in this House in order to find out how the scheme is operating, we shall be ruled out of order. Mr. Speaker will say that the Wheat Commission has had its powers delegated to it by Parliament and that no question is permissible in regard to its operations. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

The Amendment means, in effect, that the Wheat Commission's Estimates shall be presented to the House of Commons for approval. As the expenses of that Commission will not be borne by public funds, they cannot be considered in Committee of Supply. The proper occasion for their discussion will no doubt be on the Vote for the Salary of the Minister of Agriculture or the salaries of the other Ministers who are mentioned in the Bill. Those Ministers will be jointly responsible for the supervision of the operations of the Wheat Commission and for the approval of the Estimates. I am satisfied that particulars of the Commission's expenses will always be obtainable by question and answer in either House of Parliament. Therefore, I think the anxiety of hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite is not as real as they imagine. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept responsibility for the estimates of the Wheat Commission?

The estimates for the operations of the Wheat Commission will have to be submitted to me for approval, and also the rules and orders which they make. Therefore, there will be a very large measure of control.

Will it be open to this House at any given moment on the appropriate day to move a reduction in the estimates presented to the Minister by the Wheat Commission, or must we accept a statement from him?

The proper procedure will be to raise the matter on the salaries of the Minister of Agriculture or of the other Ministers who are responsible.

I hope the Amendment will be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if the Opposition desire the work of the Wheat Commission can be discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Minister of Agriculture—

Not only the Opposition—

The right hon. Gentleman knows that Supply days are usually confined to the Opposition. I agree that one does not know who the Opposition are from one day to another, because the supporters of the Government change like the weather, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the supporters of the Government who usually criticise the salary of Ministers. Therefore, no section of his own supporters will bring up the work of the Wheat Commission. When we discuss the salary of a Minister the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Debate usually embraces scores of questions, whereas the Amendment definitely asks that before the recommendations of the Wheat Commission become law they must have the approval of the House of Commons. The difference, therefore, is this, that when we discuss—if the Opposition desires—the salary of the Minister of Agriculture it may involve many other subjects, the Amendment, if accepted, means that this particular question must be discussed.

I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) that there is a great tendency on the part of all Governments to take matters outside the control of Parliament and give them to outside bodies. I am not arguing whether this is good or bad, but if Parliament is going to do that it should do it in a straightforward manner. Other questions far more important than this have been taken out of the control of Parliament. Recently a book written by an eminent counsel deplored the absence of Parliamentary control from policy and administration. We have the same question cropping up in connection with the Ministry of Labour. Decisions are being given by the umpire, and by courts of referees of immense legal importance and tremendously far-reaching consequences. They are actually giving decisions which are more far-reaching than the Act itself. Without the safeguard of the law courts, without public discussion, without consideration by trained lawyers on both sides. The Labour Government in one of their Acts—

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member in trying to raise the question of the means test, but he cannot do so on this Amendment.

I have not yet mentioned the means test and I have no intention of arguing it. I am arguing about the question of outside control.

On a point of Order. As there is no charge on the Exchequer, or on the rates, does this matter arise?

I do not quite follow the hon. and gallant Member's point.

There is no charge in the Bill on the Exchequer or on the rates. Does this question, therefore, arise?

The proposal is to take this matter out of the control of Parliament and I am illustrating the objection to that course by mentioning one Measure of the Labour Government—not the means test. They placed the making of conditions for unemployed people right outside the control of Parliament which was a shocking thing to do. The most that can be said for this proposal is that it is less vicious than what the previous Government did but it is no less wrong in principle. It is often argued against the small group who sit here that we have less respect for Parliamentary institutions than others. I often wish that hon. Members really believed in the Parliament to which they are asking other people to pay respect. I believe in Parliamentary work and Parliamentary control. I do not believe in the mock respect which is a matter of bowing and walking out. I believe in real Parliamentary control which goes beyond the ceremonial stage, which means active work and day to day control. I look upon this Amendment as raising the most important principle which the Opposition have raised in this discussion, and I hope that the Opposition will vote for the principle that the affairs of this Commission should be subject to Parliamentary discussion. I object fundamentally to secret business and to trying to pass things through without the full light of Parliamentary discussion and authority.

The Minister said that the Estimate of the Wheat Commission could be discussed either by question and answer or on his Vote. But how is anybody to know what is in the Estimate? If it is never published to the House of Commons how can anybody start to criticise it? The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that he should be asked to state what is the Estimate put forward by the Wheat Commission for the current year and that he should give the whole of the Estimate in an answer. The difficulty which we foresee is that, although it may be possible to discuss it on the right hon. Gentleman's Vote, Members can never get the information, unless some provision is made that this information shall be before the House of Commons. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what means he thinks will be available for Members of this House to have access to the estimates which are put before him, in order that they may, if they wish, bring forward criticisms of those estimates, because it seems to me an important matter that this body, which will administer perhaps a sum of between £5,000,000 and £10,000,000 and which may spend we do not know what in administrative expenses, should be open to criticism by any Member of the House.

I wonder whether the speech of the Mover of the Amendment was not delivered under a misapprehension. If the Committee will turn to Clause 6, they will see that all the receipts into the fund and the payments out of the fund, which presumably include the administrative expenses, have to be certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and are then laid before Parliament. Therefore, Parliament has complete control over the accounts of the previous year. Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 deals only with the estimates for the administrative expenses of the forthcoming year, and one would imagine that there was ample scope for Parliament to deal with the whole matter in discussing the actual expenditure of the previous year, as laid before the House under Clause 6, Sub-section (3). Anxious as I am to prevent any undue encroachment by the bureaucracy on Parliament, it would nevertheless seem a little unreasonable that the mere preparation of administrative estimates should not remain under the control of the Minister.

I think the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) is really in favour of our Amendment. If it is right that certain expenditure and certain income should be under the supervision of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it is also right that those expenses should be subjected to Parliamentary control. At the present time Ministers put in Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for their various Departments of what will be spent, but there is no such provision made for these particular estimates, and I suggest that Parliament should have this control. We are giving away to commissions and committees things over which it is really the prerogative of this Parliament to have jurisdiction, and I suggest to the Minister that there cannot be anything wrong in accepting the Amendment, because if it were carried, Parliament would have proper control of what is really public money. After all, we all have to admit that money which will come under the supervision of the Wheat Commission is money that will be derived from the taxation and so on in regard to wheat. Consequently, that money being contributed by the taxpayers in one form or another, ought to be under Parliamentary control. Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment.

The very eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) indicated, I think, that he had not taken the trouble to read the Bill before he made it. He suggested that the Bill would take power away from Parliament and put it under a corporation over which there would be no control, but if he will read the Bill Clause by Clause, he will find that nearly every vital decision is in fact to be taken by the Minister and, therefore, can be criticised on the Vote for his salary. If he will read Clause 7, he will find that in any event in most years the administrative expenses of the Commission will indirectly come before Parliament, or can be brought before Parliament, because if the Minister varies the quota payment, on the ground that there has been a surplus or a deficiency in the previous year, the whole of the expenses come under review.

Surely we are going to have some further reply from the Government. This is the first speech I have made in the discussion, and, apparently, no reply is to be returned. That is Tory fairness. It will certainly be "No" as far as I am concerned, and I shall take an active part on this Bill in that case.

I want to make it clear that there is no public money involved, and therefore it cannot come on in Supply. The point that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made cannot therefore arise. These are decisions for which the Minister is responsible, and there are precedents in other Acts for dealing with this matter in exactly the same manner. There can be a very full discussion upon the salaries of the three Ministers concerned. In these circumstances, I think the House will see that we are acting on precedent—that of the Electricity Commission is one—and, in view of the fact that there is no public money involved, I think we are in order in taking the line that we have taken.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how we are to know what is in the Estimates if we wish to criticise them?

I think a great deal of that information can be obtained by question and answer.

Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN collected the voices, and stated that he thought that the Ayes had it.

On a point of Order. I went on saying "No" each time you put the Question. Am I not entitled as a Member to say "No," and are you not entitled, Mr. Chairman, to take the Noes? Am I not entitled to a Division, even if it be to stand up, as long as I continue to say "No," and I am duly heard? Should not that be taken notice of, and am I not entitled at least to have the privilege of standing up in that connection?

If the hon. Member desires the privilege of standing up, I am prepared to give it to him.

Well, I am prepared to take it.

Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

I beg to move, in page 15, line 18, after the word "Commission," to insert the words:

"with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may impose."

This Amendment stands with the next Amendment in line 20, to leave out from the word "expenses," to the end of the Sub-section. These Amendments are moved exclusively for the purpose of clarity, and to avoid several lines in the Sub-section which appear to be redundant. If the Amendments were accepted, the Sub-section would read:

"The Wheat Commission with the consent of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may impose, hall have power to borrow such sums as may be required by them for the purpose of defraying their administrative expenses."

If the words following the word "expenses" were deleted, these loans could be obtainable only by the consent of the Minister, and under such conditions as the Minister lays down. The purpose of the Minister would be fulfilled, and a number of redundant words would be disposed of. The Wheat Commission ought not to be permitted to secure loans of any kind without having first of all obtained the consent of the Minister. If, however, the Sub-section remains as it is, the Wheat Commission can secure loans without even consulting the Minister and only after the Minister had been consulted would it be necessary for him to lay down certain conditions in regard to repaying the principal and interest of loans. If the Amendments were accepted, the Sub-section would be much clearer and the same object would he obtained.

11.0 p.m.

The two Amendments referred to would require that the consent of the Minister should be obtained to any borrowing in any circumstances. I am clear that the right proceeding is that which is provided for in Sub-section (5) of Clause 9, which requires that, the consent of the Minister should be obtained to any borrowing by the Commission which will not be repaid by them before the end of a cereal year, and might, therefore, not be of a temporary character. Such control is important, and it is completely assured. As to the other points, all the administrative expenses of the Commission will require prior approval by the Minister, and I think it is really asking more than is essential for proper control if the Commission have to seek further approval to borrow a purely temporary loan from the Bank of England, because, after all, they can only borrow within the bounds of the temporary expenditure which has already been approved by the Minister. As long as it is kept closely to that, and will not include any loan which goes beyond the cereal year, I think we achieve all reasonable control.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 10—(Power Of Wheat Commission To Obtain Information)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 39, after the word "any," to insert the words

"dealer in wheat, flour, or wheat offals."

This Amendment is moved with the object of extending the category of persons already covered by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1). At present it includes only carriers, that is, all railway companies, warehousemen or their servants or agents, who are required to give the Wheat Commission certain particulars. We feel that if the Wheat Commission are to have these wide powers they may as well be extended to cover everybody concerned, and we suggest the addition of these fresh categories.

I agree with the purpose of this Amendment, and shall be prepared to accept it, though I think it may involve some small consequential Amendments on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 8, after the word "and" to insert the words

"subject to any legal objection."

Paragraph (b) deals with various matters ort which the Commission have power, by notice in writing, to require certain registered growers and others to provide information. With these words inserted, the Commission will have power to require any registered grower or officer of any corporation or any person whom the Commission have reasonable cause to

"believe to be a miller or an importer of flour, or a person carrying on business as a dealer in wheat or flour, to furnish such information as may be specified in the notice, and, subject to any legal objection, to produce to any auditor appointed by the Commission such accounts, books and other documents as may be necessary."

The point of inserting the words of the Amendment is that there may be reason why some of these documents should not be produced to an auditor. It is in order to protect any such person from the possible consequences of being ordered by the Wheat Commission to do something which is contrary to his legal duty that we suggest the inclusion of these words.

I am advised that these words are not necessary. The only documents that can be called for are such documents as may be necessary to enable the auditor to check the information given to him. If a person refused to produce such a document and was prosecuted under Sub-section (2) for not producing it, it would be open to him to put forward the defence that the document was not necessary, and if the court held such a defence to be good he would not have to produce the document. The legal objection referred to in the Amendment can always be taken before the court, and there is nowhere else that it can be taken. The Amendment, therefore, is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 16, line 16, after the word "premises," to insert the words "other than domestic."

The Sub-section would then read:

"Any person authorised under the last foregoing sub-section to exercise any functions may at all reasonable times upon production of his authority on demand enter on any land or premises other than domestic, and take samples of any wheat or flour found thereon."

The reason for the Amendment is to make the Sub-section more explanatory and less inquisitorial. Paragraph (b) leaves an ambiguity. I do not want such power to be allowed to any officer who is making inquiries. I do not want him to be able to go inside domestic premises.

We think that the Amendment is not necessary. There is no fear that the inspectors will look into a miller's private larder for a sack of 280 lbs. of flour, or in a farmer's bedroom for 4½ cwts. of wheat. Farmers and millers do not hide these things unless they are the sort of people who practise fraud on a very elaborate scale, in which case they are very soon detected in the ordinary way. I really do not think that there would be any danger of the kind anticipated.

If one reads the Subsection, it will be found that there are many things which can be put inside the house, and that is why we wish to insert the words "other than domestic." I know my proposal might be redundant under ordinary conditions, but when men come to visit houses with authority they come in with all the power of the law, and poke their noses into places where they ought not to go. I think it is such a simple proposition that it ought to be accepted, and, if it meets the broadmindedness of the Minister, I hope he will consent to insert those words.

The point is not what a farmer can do, but what an inspector may do. I view the words of this Clause with very grave apprehension. There is practically no place into which an inspector might not poke his nose, and, without wishing presently to wash our prospective dirty linen in public and to go into any greater detail now, I wish to say that I shall support this Amendment not only on the ground of public decency but of public chastity.

I think the domestic premises of the farmer ought to be protected. If an inspector has power to visit all parts of the farm and the warehouse, I think we ought at least to protect the house, because an Englishman's home is supposed to be his castle, as we have heard so frequently from hon. Members opposite. I remember the Debate on the Kettering Gas Bill in which we heard frequently from hon.

Division No. 123.]	AYES.	[11.17 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George	Hirst, George Henry	Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Holdsworth, Herbert	Rothschild, James A. de
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jenkins, Sir William	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George	John, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kirkwood, David	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Lunn, William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bernays, Robert	Broadbent, Colonel John
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Blindell, James	Browne, Captain A. C.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Bossom, A. C.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Boulton, W. W.	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Caine, G. R. Hall-
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Carver, Major William H.

Members opposite that an Englishman's home was his castle. In this case, the right hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter, and that the Amendment is out of date. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will see the wisdom of accepting the Amendment, and preserving the farm from a Nosey Parker inspector of whom we have already too many. Where we require more inspectors we cannot get them, and where we require fewer the Government propose to give us more. These inspectors ought not to be allowed to trespass upon the private domestic premises of any farm. The Government may be making friends of the farmers by passing this Bill, but the farmers' wives will not love them if they give the inspectors power to enter upon their domestic premises. [ Interruption.] I am reminded that the inspectors will be the servants of the Wheat Commission, and will not be subject to Parliament, or even to the right hon. Gentleman. The members of the Wheat Commission will be able to deal with these inspectors. If it be true that, as has been said so frequently, an Englishman's home is his castle, the domestic part of his home ought to be preserved, and we shall insist either upon this Amendment being accepted or upon pressing it to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 36 Noes. 216.

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Kimball, Lawrence	Held, William Allan (Derby)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Robinson, John Roland
Christie, James Archibald	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Ropner, Colonel L.
Colman, N. C. D.	Law, Sir Alfred	Rosbotham, S. T.
Colville, John	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Conant, R. J. E.	Leckie, J. A.	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cook, Thomas A.	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Copeland, Ida	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Craven-Ellis, William	Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Levy, Thomas	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Crossley, A. C.	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Salmon, Major Isidore
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham.)
Donner, P. W,	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Drewe, Cedric	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Duggan, Hubert John	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Scone, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Selley, Harry R.
Eastwood, John Francis	Mabane, William	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Elmley, Viscount	McCorquodale, M. S.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McKie, John Hamilton	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	McLean, Major Alan	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Fox, Sir Gifford	Magnay, Thomas	Soper, Richard
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Martin, Thomas B.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Glossop, C. W. H.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)	Stones, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Storey, Samuel
Goff, Sir Park	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
	Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Gower, Sir Robert	Mitcheson, G. G.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Graves, Marjorie	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Tate, Mavis Constance
Greene, William P. C.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Templeton, William P.
Grimston, R. V.	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Thompson, Luke
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Munro, Patrick	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	North, Captain Edward T.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hanley, Dennis A.	Nunn, William	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	O'Connor, Terence James	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hartington, Marquess of	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Wells, Sydney Richard
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G A.	Weymouth, Viscount
Hops, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Palmer, Francis Noel	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Pearson, William G.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence	Penny, Sir George	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Howard, Tom Forrest	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Petherick, M	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Wise, Alfred R.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pike, Cecil F.	Womersley, Walter James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Wragg, Herbert
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Hadcliffe)	Ramsay, T. B, W. (Western Isles)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsden, E.	Major George Davies and Lord
Jennings, Roland	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Erskine.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Rea, Walter Russell

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I wish to ask the Minister to explain two points on Sub-section (2) which we have been discussing. In many parts of the Committee there is a feeling that this Clause is rather unfortunately worded, and perhaps the Minister would be good enough to consider redrafting it between now and the Report stage. Farmers ought to know that they are to be placed under an authority in this Clause, which seems to combine something of the attributes of the Spanish Inquisition and of the Klu-klux Klan. This is a sort of thing that I do not wish to see established in this country, and hon. Members opposite are supporting this method. Under the Clause, any person who is an inspector of this board or authority can come upon a farmer's premises—his house or grounds—at any reasonable time, and take samples of wheat and ask for books, accounts and documents. If he is impeded in any way, the farmer is subject to heavy penalties, and may even receive three months' imprisonment.

In regard to the words "any person," has the farmer no defence against any kind of person entering his premises? The inspector might be an individual for whom the farmer had a dislike. He might be a, person with whom the farmer had had trouble in the past, who had insulted the farmer's daughter, or made eyes at his wife. He might be a man whom the farmer had previously threatened to put into the duck-pond or to set his dog on. This objectionable fellow might come up to the farmer's premises and on seeing the farmer would say, "Ha, ha!" The farmer would have to throw open wide his portals and show him anything he might want to see—books, documents and other things specified in the order. If he impeded him in any way the inspector would say that he must do exactly as he wanted him to do or he would get three months' imprisonment. I suggest that the fanner or miller ought to be given some protection and be entitled to say to the authority, "You propose to send so-and-so, and I will not have him here. He is not persona grata, and you had better send somebody else." He ought to be entitled to protection. The second point is, that the inspector has to enter at any reasonable time. I suggest that the reasonable time should be one which is reasonable to the farmer and not merely to the inspector. The inspector should not come, for example, at a time when the farmer is in the middle of a. 10-acre field, or in the market town, or away on private or business affairs. He should not come without notice. The farmer should be entitled to receive 10 days' notice that the inspector intends to come, and he should also be entitled to say that the time suggested is not a convenient time, and to suggest another time. Otherwise, the man may come at any time, whether it is convenient or not. Those two safeguards ought to be put in somewhere, and, if necessary, the Clause should be redrafted between now and the Report stage. If they are not inserted the operation of the Act will not be so easy as it would otherwise be. It may become unpopular in certain places, and the inspector may be greeted not with politeness but with pitchforks. In order that that should not occur I ask the Minister to give us an assurance on these two points.

I am certain that these regulations ensure, in the first place, that notice in writing shall be given, and that the entry shall be at a reasonable time. The inspector will not go unless he receives a report that there is some difficulty in connection with the carrying out of the duties under the Act. It is right that these powers should be given, and I do not anticipate that there will be any misuse of them.

If notice is given to the farmer will he be entitled to write back and say that it is not a convenient time and to suggest an alternative time?

I have no doubt that if that were not done for the pure purpose of evasion it would be accepted.

Will he be able to take exception to the inspector himself, to say, for instance, that there has been some trouble between him and the inspector and to suggest that some other person should be sent?

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[ Sir J. Gilmour.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

Volume 263: debated on Thursday 17 March 1932

House Of Commons

Member Sworn

Private Business

Oral Answers To Questions

Unemployment

Benefit (Dependants' Allowances)

Transitional Payments

Training Centre, Slough

Tin-Mining Industry

Insurance (Royal Commission's Report)

North-Western Division

Statistics

Bread Prices

Ex-Service Men (King's National Roll)

Government Departments

Ministry Of Labour

Ministry Of Health

Women Factory Inspectors

Assistant Under-Secretaries Of State

Income Tax Officers, Carnarvon

Customs Officials, Bristol (Overtime)

Workmen's Compensation

Wild Birds, Kent

Penton Ville Prison Staff

Police

Amalgamations (Inquiry)

Women Police

Transport

Minor Traffic Offences

Road And Rail Accidents

London Passenger Transport Bill

Sunday Entertainments

Public Billiard Rooms (Licences)

National Health Insurance

Housing

Lancashire

Rent Restrictions Act

Public Health

Milk And Dairies Act

Midwives (Training Grants)

Cured Bacon

Private Street Works

National Finance

Pound Sterling (Exchange Value)

Income Tax

Beer Duty

Entertainments Duty

War Gratuity Certificates (Conversion)

Newspaper Insurance (Stamp Duty)

Members Of Parliament (Travel Vouchers)

Friendly Societies (Registration)

Agriculture

Drainage Grants

Unemployed Allotment Holders (Assistance)

Wheat Bill

Beet-Sugar Industry

Pigs (Import Licence)

House Of Commons (Refreshment Department)

Trade And Commerce

China Clay (French Import Quota)

Abnormal Importations Duty (Rubber Shoes)

Food Council

Liberia

Maidstone Prison

Conferences, Ottawa, Lausanne And Geneva (Delegations)

China And Japan

Business Of The House

Message From The Lords

Orders Of The Day

Wheat Bill

Clause 3—(Quota Payments By Millers And Importers)

Clause 4—(By-Laws Of The Wheat Commission)

Royal Assent

Wheat Bill

Clause 5—(Provisions For Securing Payment Of Quota Payments In Respect Of Imported Flour, And Pre-Entry Of Export Flour)

Clause 6—(Provisions As To Wheat Fund)

Clause 7—(Adjustment Of Surpluses And Deficiencies In Wheat Fund)

Clause 8—(Provisions As To Millers' Quota Fund)