I beg to move, in page 17, line 18, to leave out paragraph (a).

This paragraph reads:

"for prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be millable wheat;"

I think it would be very unwise to give this power. In the first place, the producer is very inadequately represented on the Wheat Board, which will have the making of these regulations and orders. Another reason is that I believe it is absolutely unnecessary to do it, because millers know, whether they will admit it or not, that there is no wheat to-day which is not millable. With all the machinery and processing methods that they have, there is very little, if any at all, which is not of millable quality. I do not say that it does not vary in quality, but, with the machinery that they have, practically any wheat can be and is used for flour making.

My final point is this. I think the position will be adequately met by the procedure of the Bill itself, which I think is a very admirable one, because one of the chief features of the Bill is that it leaves a free market for the sale of wheat. The true value of the wheat will be determined by the first payment; that is to say, the free market made by the miller or dealer with the farmer. I look upon the deficiency payment, not in the sense of a payment for the value of the wheat, but more as a payment for having produced wheat under conditions which are unsuitable in some cases as compared with the conditions that exist elsewhere. The true value of the wheat will be found by the first payment that is made in the open market. On these grounds, I ask the Minister to consider the Amendment favourably and to see if he cannot exclude the paragraph.

This Amendment would omit from the Bill specific mention of the Minister's power, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, to make regulations defining the standard of millable wheat. It is essential that someone should have the power to define millable wheat. It is clearly an advantage that it should be in the Bill, and I cannot think there is a better method of doing it than that it should be defined by the Minister after consultation with the Wheat Commission, upon which body there are not only representatives of the farmers, but also representatives of the corn merchants and millers, who are really the people who have knowledge as to what is and what is not millable wheat. It is true that we have perhaps a wider experience and a better machinery for dealing with the milling of a great variety of different classes of wheat, and it may well be, taking it broadly, that there is very little wheat which in one form or another cannot be classed as millable. But there ought to be some limit, at any rate. Clearly, it would be highly improper that there should be no check upon this matter, and it is after consultation with practical people that this decision will be taken. I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

This is a very interesting Amendment, and the paragraph is also a very interesting one. It describes the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be defined as millable. If the Minister knows that there can be a definition of millable wheat, I am surprised that he does not define it in the Schedule. I do not know if he is going to take weeks and months using his great ingenuity and intelligence to find a definition, or if there is to be a great variety of samples. Are we to have boxes of samples all over the country to show what comes under the category of millable wheat? I have taken considerable trouble to inquire about this expression "millable wheat." I am assured that you can hardly say there is any wheat which is not millable in some place or other if the miller is willing to grind it into flour. With steel machinery and American methods, I am assured that 90 per cent. of British wheat is not suitable to go through the mill, but, if it is a matter of a country mill, with old-fashioned methods, practically all the wheat that is grown could be turned into flour if there was a man willing to grind it. The whole thing is pure camouflage. The Minister is under no delusion. He knows that the wheat is not fit to be turned into flour, and the wheat that is going to be bought will only be bought to enable the farmer to go through the form of getting his certificate to earn his money under the Bill.

I think the mover of the Amendment is justified in saying to the Minister, "Either define what you mean in the Bill, so as to be fair and just to all concerned, or leave it out." If you cannot define it in words intelligible to the ordinary public, do not keep up this pretence. The whole of the Bill is pretence. The quota is pretence. There is to be no quota. The Minister knows that as well as anyone in the House. There is to be no quota of English wheat used in British flour or bread. This is an ingenious contrivance in order to get round difficulties which the Minister discovered when he tried to get consent to a quota Bill. But I think this great House of Commons, with its great traditions, should not keep up these pretences. If you are going to use words of this kind, suggesting that you can define millable wheat in clear language, put it into the Act of Parliament. If not, drop the words altogether.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), in moving the Amendment, suggested that there was practically no wheat of non-millable quality. If that is the case, what is his worry? I am going to oppose the Amendment, because if there is no wheat of non-millable quality there is nothing for him to complain of at all. If wheat of a low grade is included, you will lower the average price obtained for the wheat, and it will mean an increase of the amount to be found by the millers, and it is for that reason that I strongly oppose the Amendment.

I have a certain measure of sympathy with the Amendment of say hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), because I doubt whether in practice you can, in words, give a definition. I should find it very difficult, to give a classical example, to define an elephant, but we all know an elephant when we see one. That is equally true, I believe, of millable wheat. On the other hand, we have to recognise what happens in Canada. I remember being in a grain station in Canada and seeing that they were able, in fact, to grade wheat of certain standards. I am not sufficiently well acquainted with the technicalities to say whether the Canadian practice can be introduced here. I am all in favour of standardisation where it is possible. I was for 18 months the Chairman of a Committee known as the Central Committee on Standardisation and Simplification, and one was always impressed there by the immense practical difficulties of introducing a standard. Probably what the Minister has in mind is to define the standard of wheat by a price test, because if you have a price test you can probably solve the problem. One knows what is up to a certain standard without difficulty when he sees it. If the standard were to be prescribed by some reference to price and the price for a particular quality of wheat was so much per cent. below the general average price then prevailing, it might be a convenient means of saying what wheat was not millable because it was not of sufficient quality to justify the higher price. It is to be noted that the Minister is not compelled to prescribe the standard. It only says, "may," and, so long as he regards the matter as something which he may do and not something which he must do, we shall not be troubled as a result of the paragraph.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be some words in order to define what is known by millable wheat. I can understand the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) wanting the deletion of the paragraph, because he, representing the farmers, wants 100 per cent. of the wheat produced to be regarded as millable for quota payment purposes.

I did not make that claim at all, and I hope that the hon. Member will not say that I did. I said that there were varying qualities and that the varying qualities can be met by the first payment made by the miller. I did not claim that all wheat of whatever quality should be given the standard price.

I should not reflect upon the hon. Gentleman's political sagacity by suggesting that he did make use of those words. I think that it is clearly understood that we are always more important for what we do not say on matters of this kind than perhaps for what we do say.

I do not make that claim.

In any case, the right hon. Gentleman has already informed us that his expectation is that approximately 85 per cent. of the wheat produced in this country can be regarded as millable. The case must be based upon some past experience, and 15 per cent. being non-millable clearly suggests that there must be a definition of a kind. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman failed to co-operate with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who apparently, has been Chairman of the Committee on Standardisation and Simplification. If the hon. Member for South Croydon with his genius for devising simple words, would co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman, how much easier it would be to deal with the Bill.

I agree that there are certain qualities of wheat, not all of which is sold for the purpose of bread making. It must be recognised in advance that approximately 90 per cent. of the wheat for which deficiency payment will be made will be consumed by poultry or as cattle food and for purposes of that kind, and the right hon. Gentleman is at least obliged to define what the term "millable wheat" implies; otherwise, obviously, 100 per cent. of English-grown wheat, a very small proportion of which is embodied in bread flour, will be entitled to receive the deficiency payment. While we shall move in a later Amendment that certain additions be made to paragraph (a) so that the definition of millable wheat shall be a much clearer proposition and better understood, we are convinced that the Sub-section as it stands is absolutely essential, or else 100 per cent. of the wheat grown in this country will be regarded as wheat entitled to the deficiency payment.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister is not going to accept the Amendment. The Amendment goes a little too far. I am convinced that unless the public are assured that the wheat to be used in the quota is of some use for flour, the Bill will not last very long, and for that reason I hope that the Minister will stick by this particular part of the Bill. I do not wish to seem to be rebellious in any way, but I think that we ought to get some very clear definition before the Bill leaves us as to what is wheat of a millable quality. It is most essential that that should be stated, if possible. It surely cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the whole of the wheat growers and millers of the country and the lawyers to define what wheat is fit to be made into flour. It would be a most useful thing to find out before we leave this part of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) rather made a mistake. He talked about samples in little boxes. I am not a wheat expert, but samples of wheat are not put into little boxes like tin toys from Germany and that sort of thing. The hon. Member will find that wheat samples are put into little paper packets or little canvas bags or something of that kind. I do not wish to seem to be instructing him in what is happening, but I think that he rather made a slip. I hope that the Government will stand out on this occasion against the Amendment, although I realise that there is something in it.

I should like to make a correction. I was misunderstood or misinterpreted, I do not know which, when was said that I had stated that all wheat was of the same value and should be entitled to have the deficiency payment on the same scale. I did not say that. I said that all wheat varies. It is quite true that, although you may, and can, give to yourself, on sight, a definition as to what the varying value of samples might be, you will find it absolutely impossible to do so in words. The Minister said that the millers, and, I believe, the dealers, would do so. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) said it would take lawyers to do so. It proves to me more than anything else that the paragraph should be eliminated if we are to have lawyers to say what is and what is not millable wheat.

I apologise sincerely if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman opposite. I had his speech very much in mind when I mentioned lawyers. It is necessary to have lawyers to convert the matter into the technical terms of the Bill. That is the use of lawyers. The use of experts of another type is to try and prove what is millable and what is not, and therefore I should like the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite in certain circumstances.

I anticipate that the difficulty that will present itself to the Wheat Commission will be the condition of the samples, and I would suggest that the words "condition to which" the wheat must conform would perhaps be better.

I hope the Minister will consider putting in some other definition, or some limitation of the power with regard to fixing the standard of millable wheat. There ought to be some limitation of the power to fix and define what is millable quality. I know that it is a very difficult thing to define and that it is almost impossible to put it into a Bill, but I think that some effort ought to be made to do it. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that this was not a wheat quota Bill. He must remember that the Minister lays down each year the amount of wheat that is to qualify for the deficiency payment, and that only a definite proportion of wheat grown in this country will qualify.

I associate myself with those who have argued that it is a rather dangerous thing to prescribe a standard in set words in a Bill. I cannot help thinking that it would be much better to leave out paragraph (a) and to allow the trade itself to work out the standard. Although I recognise that we must have restrictions in the Bill and that we must have officials and control, I desire the control to be as small as possible, because I believe that that would be in the best interests of the farmer, the miller, and all concerned.

The next three Amendments cover similar points, and I think we might take the discussion on the first Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 17, line 18, after the word "prescribing," to insert the words:

"by reference among other things to the moisture content."

The object of the three Amendments is to point out certain very important considerations as regards the standard of wheat of millable quality and, if possible, to get them inserted as limitations upon the Minister's power as prescribed in paragraph (a), and, secondly, to secure a statement from the Minister as to the lines upon which he proposes to work out the definition of millable wheat. The whole of the Bill, starting from the second line of the first Clause, is based upon home-grown millable wheat. It is not based upon our giving a subsidy for wheat as wheat, but only upon millable wheat. As we understand the term "millable," it does not mean wheat which it is possible to mill, because it is possible to put any wheat through the mill, but wheat which is fit for the ordinary operation of making flour from the wheat. There are a great number of wheats which vary in their fitness.

They would all make flour.

Of course, it is possible to make flour from any wheat, if you spend enough money on doing it, but in many cases it would be wholly unremunerative and the flour would not be fit for the ordinary purposes of baking.

Yes.

The hon. Member says "yes," but I am sure that he is wrong. If he will study the books which deal with the baking of British flour, and the enormous number of patent specifications which have been taken out for devising methods by which that wheat can be made into flour fit for baking purposes, he will appreciate that it is not an entirely simple proposition to make certain types of wheat really fit for the production of flour for ordinary purposes. If you use the term "flour" as it is used in this Bill to cover wheat meal as well as flour, the proposition is an entirely different one, because you can use any wheat for the purpose of making wheat meal. It is merely the process of grinding the wheat into a meal, just as you make barley meal from any quality of barley. When one comes to consider this Bill and the importance of defining what is millable wheat, it becomes apparent that the right hon. Gentleman will have to lay down some very precise regulations in order to define the standard of the wheat that will be useful for the purpose of limiting the subsidy. The introduction of the word "millable" is designed to limit the subsidy to a certain class and type of wheat of a specified standard.

11.30 a.m.

The first Amendment which we suggest is that there should be a reference, among other things, to the moisture content. That seems to us to be very fundamental and of extreme importance. The price which is given for wheat depends to a considerable extent upon the moisture content. That is the reason why wheats in this country which are sold early in the year fetch lower prices than wheats sold later in the year, because later in the year a considerable portion of the moisture has evaporated. The wheats are far more fit for milling when they become dry, more like the Canadian wheats, than when they are damp in the autumn. There is another question in regard to moisture, and that is that we do not desire the farmers to get a subsidy on water. It is bad enough that they should get a subsidy on wheat, but we do not want them to get a subsidy on water. If there is no limit on the moisture content the price that the farmer will get for his wheat per cwt. will be partly a price for wheat and partly a price for water.

That is so in beer now.

It is so also in strawberries to the extent of 98 per cent., but the people do not mind that. It is remarkable in regard to wheat that you get variations of water content. Threshed wheat and wheat in the rick vary from 10 and 12 per cent. up to as much as 20 per cent. If the wheat is sold in the autumn and it contains 20 per cent. of moisture it means that, unless there is some regulation that that wheat is not of millable quality, in effect the subsidy will have to be paid on a greater amount of wheat in order to make up the price to that of the wheat of drier quality. If there is 20 per cent. of moisture in the wheat the price in the open market will he lower, and unless there is some limitation as to the amount of moisture the subsidy will have to make up the deficiency in price which is due to that excess of moisture. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter serious consideration, because we look upon it as one of the greatest importance.

It has a bearing upon the marketing of this wheat. We do not want there to give any encouragement to farmers to market their wheat when it is most wet, when it will be heaviest. If the price is to be made up by the subsidy whether the wheat is wet or not it will obviously be to the advantage of the farmer to market his wheat wet. At present he does not do so because he hopes to get a higher price when it is dry in the spring months, but if the price is going to be made up by the subsidy, whether it is wet or dry, there will be an inducement to the farmer in the first months of the cereal year to sell as much of his wet wheat as he can, because he will not suffer by the fact that there is excessive moisture in it. That is the first point.

The second point we raise is in regard to the dry gluten content which is a characteristic most important for the purposes of baking. It is by the dry gluten content that the ordinary tests of wheat are made as to whether it is fit or not for making an upstanding loaf, and we suggest that one of the things which should be laid down as a standard for wheat is that it should contain a, certain dry gluten content, because that is the content with which a baker is accustomed to deal, and by which he recognises good millable wheat or bad millable wheat, or wheat which is not millable at all.

The third criterion which we suggest is the presence or absence of what may be called diseases of certain kinds. There are certain wheat diseases, such as rust, smut or fungoid disease, which definitely disqualify it for millable purposes, and we suggest that one of the criteria which the right hon. Gentleman should lay down in arriving at the standard to which wheat must conform is that it should be free from disease. If he is going to allow diseased wheat to get the subsidy as millable wheat he will not be putting pressure on farmers to keep their wheat free from disease.

These are the three main points which we desire to see raid down in the specification which the right hon. Gentleman is going to make, but no doubt he will tell us further points he has in mind by which he intends to specify the standard. What we ask is that in any event these three important points should be included, and included in this Sub-section in order that it may be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to specify them when he comes to make the order under this Subsection.

These Amendments deal with three particular points—moisture content, dry gluten content, and rust, smut or other fungoid disease. A good deal has been said about the moisture content. In the first place, there is really no wheat which does not contain moisture in some degree or another. It has been suggested that a farmer will endeavour to sell his wheat in a wet condition. In practice, as I understand it, that is exactly what he does not do, because, obviously, he gets a lower price for it. Of course, farmers are not going to do anything of the sort.

What I said was that, although farmers might get a lower price, it would be made up by the subsidy.

The better the Wheat when it is sold in the open market the better the price the farmer will get for it and, therefore, the higher his reward. The lower the price the less reward he gets. What we are all seeking to arrive at is a standard description which will be such that men of judgment in the market place will be able to apply it. That is the practical consideration. The last thing the Committee should attempt to do is to place any definite standard in the terms of the Bill. There will be differences of opinion as to what is or is not proper millable quality wheat, but there will be local market committees in each district, and if there are disputes these committees which will be composed of practical farmers and merchants and millers and should be able to judge whether any particular sample of wheat is or is not in accordance with the usual market practice of the past. The danger of attempting to put in any kind of definition is very practical.

Take the Amendment which deals with rust and smut or other fungoid diseases. Rust is not identifiable in relation to the grain and the Amendment omits any reference to bunt, which is most objectionable. It is only in practice and in the hands of practical people that these things can be made a success. It is intended that the standard of wheat should be defined in terms which will include all wheat which is at present accepted as millable, but this will naturally exclude seconds and tail wheat which is not properly cleaned, and which is definitely objectionable in character. While all these questions will no doubt have to be taken into consideration I hope the Committee will realise that they will be considered by practical people who have been conducting this industry all their lives and who will continue to operate this scheme in a free market. They are not going to give any individual a price which the sample does not merit. There is an incentive to farmers to present their wheat in the best possible condition both as to cleanliness and quality because it will command the best price in the market. Working in conjunction with the scientific research department and ascertaining the best class of wheat for certain classes of land, the farming community will have a direct incentive to produce the best quality wheat. I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman's speech has consisted of many contradictions. He says that we ought not to tack on these three conditions because the people engaged in this business know their job and are practical people, and then he suggests that it would be absurd to invite them to make a definition with reference to the points in the three Amendments. Surely these things are defined in day-to-day transactions now by practical people. All that we are inviting the right hon. Gentleman to do is to continue to expect that the practical people who will be the determining factor as to what the consumer of bread has to pay, should take into consideration the known variations in the quality of wheat at different seasons of the year. Two things stand out. One is the water content, which on 27,000,000 cwts. may amount to no less than 1,350,000 cwts. The consumer of the bread is going to be called upon to pay a subsidy on that colossal quantity. At least we are entitled to invite the practical miller and the practical farmer to take into account the known factors that exist in this trade.

The second point is this: The right hon. Gentleman must know that farming, broadly speaking, is not a business but a mere gamble [Interruption]. Every practical farmer in this House will agree with that statement. More often than not it is a gamble and not a business, because of the farmer's lack of decent marketing methods and that kind of thing. The farmers make their own industry into a gamble, because they fail to follow the needs of the moment with regard to organisation. If the farmer is as badly off as many hon. Members would have us believe—we do not deny that many are down and out—if they can secure a guaranteed price of 45s. a quarter, whether they sell immediately after July or in the following April, May or June, they are going to sell their wheat when it has the highest percentage of water content. That is going to result in just what the right hon. Gentleman ought to be attempting to avoid. An odd farmer here and there will hold up his wheat to April or May in order to get a higher price and to get something beyond the guaranteed 45s. by what he conceives to be good selling, but a very large proportion of the farmers will sell as early as they can, knowing that that 45s. is guaranteed to them.

There is no guarantee.

Surely there is a guarantee that the price to be received will be 45s. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. gentlemen opposite have read the Bill. Whether the guaranteed price is 45s. or not, certainly 45s. is intended to be the mean price. It may be possible to receive slightly below 45s., but for every 1s. received below that figure by some farmers, others will receive more. Therefore the average guaranteed price is 45s. under the terms of the Bill. Whether the farmers sell at 25s. with a load of water or at 35s. with water diminished, will make no difference to the average farmer. Forty-five shillings or round about 45s. will be received by that farmer at the end of the cereal year. Our point is that in any case reference ought to be made to water content and gluten content and smut and rust and other fungoid diseases. We say that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself justice unless be accepts these three Amendments, so that the Committee concerned will have all the facts before them.

This Amendment ought to be accepted, because behind it will be an insistent demand for the farmers to market their wheat properly. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to see arable land successfully and economically cultivated, they will have to help by any means at their disposal to superimpose marketing conditions upon the farmers, so that instead of the gamble to which I have referred there will be sensible methods of collecting and selling their produce and an average price for all the farmers will be obtained pretty well throughout the year, apart from any variations that there may be because of mechanisation and the old horse methods. We are making a very nice present to arable farmers, and that is sufficient justification for the Minister and his followers to help the farmers to help themselves by defining in the Bill what is intended to be millable wheat. We are inviting the Minister to safeguard the consumer and to safeguard the farmer, and we are inviting the farmer to adopt better methods of farming.

I hardly think that the hon. Member can have meant seriously that farming is a gamble entirely due to the farmers' lack of marketing methods. It must be obvious that in a country with a system which we have operated now for three generations, whereby the whole of the world is invited to send to us its agricultural products, which may be raised under any conditions of labour—

That matter had better be discussed on Clause 15.

Then I shall address myself directly to the three Amendments. I invite the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to consider this point: Let us assume for the moment that the three Amendments were incorporated in the Bill. It would mean that every single sample of wheat produced in this country and offered to a registered grower to rank for the deficiency payment, would have to be subject to analysis. It would have to be analysed for gluten content, moisture content, and it would have a different kind of examination for rust, smut and fungoid disease. Does the hon. and learned Member seriously suggest that that is practical? Does he mean that the small registered grower who is perhaps producing only a few quarters of wheat on a small holding should come within this proposal and that there should be separate analyses of a little parcel of wheat of that sort for all these various purposes? If the Amendments mean anything, they mean that such analyses would have to take place, which is, of course, absurd.

On the question of moisture regarding which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol spoke at some length I would remind him that there are certain practical limitations in that respect. It has been said that the wheat sold soon after the harvest has a higher moisture content than the wheat which has been kept in the stack for several months. There is, however, a limitation to the amount of wheat which can come on the market during the period when the moisture content is highest. There are practical considerations which limit it. One is that the number of threshing machines available in this country is limited. Frequently, farmers desire to thresh a considerable portion of their wheat or other cereal crops but are debarred from doing so by the limited number of machines available. That is one limiting factor. There is another. In the barley-growing districts most farmers are anxious to get on to the market with their barley rather than with their wheat, because the best barley market obtains normally in October and there is always a scramble to thresh bar- ley at the time of year when the moisture content is high, rather than to thresh wheat.

There is a further limiting factor. If the registered grower intends to put in a reasonable breadth of wheat for the following spring, he is busy in October and early in November preparing the land for sowing that wheat crop. I notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite smiles, but I can claim to have first-hand knowledge of this subject and I say that that is a serious limitation in regard to threshing the wheat and putting it on the market. Automatically and in practice, apart from some early threshings of wheat out of the field in harvest-time, the generality of the ordinary wheat threshing then is really for the purpose of obtaining seed wheat for the next season. Therefore the proportion of the wheat crop which is normally marketed in the autumn months for milling purposes is not very large and I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman or his colleagues need be alarmed that there will be a great rush on the part of British growers to thresh the whole of the wheat crop at that time of year. It it also to be remembered that the deficiency payment will not be available to them at that time. Only the ordinary market price which they would be getting to-day will be available at the moment at which they deliver their wheat. They have to wait, possibly some months, for the interim payment, and a further period before they get the final payment. There is going to be no additional inducement in the Bill to make any farmer try to thresh his wheat earier than he does to-day, in the ordinary way.

Then the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to argue that the farmer will have an inducement to market his wheat in any condition, and not to bother as to the price which he will obtain for any sample. I think that one of the best features of the Bill is that it leaves an absolutely free market in wheat such as obtains to-day. When the Bill becomes an Act there will be just as much inducement as there is at present, for the farmer, when he takes a sample to the market, to try to obtain the last 1½d. a quarter that he can squeeze out of millers or merchants. I do not think there is any argument to show that the farmer will be made careless in the marketing of his corn or that he will be content to take a lower price. On the point as to millable quality, surely there is this governing factor. Is a registered grower going to be so foolish as to run the risk of losing his certificate that his parcel of wheat is of millable quality? Obviously, under the Bill he is going to take more care to dress up his wheat properly and to give good delivery than he has ever done before. For all these reasons I think these Amendments are quite unnecessary and I conclude by repeating that were they to be incorporated in the Bill the logical consequence would be that there would have to be analyses of every single parcel of wheat large or small.

I wish to answer one or two of the points which the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) has raised. I, too, have some experience of farming. I farmed for 10 years and I was brought up on a farm, so that I have some slight knowledge of the growing of wheat as well as of other crops. The hon. and gallant Member must appreciate that the logical conclusion of his argument is that it is impossible to lay down a standard of mill-able wheat because whatever standard—[Interruption.] I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was against it when there was a call for the "ayes" and the "noes," but he must appreciate that, if a standard is to be laid down—and the Committee has now decided that a standard is to be laid down—then it must be a standard which eventually will have to be tested as regards every sample. Everybody knows of course, that what actually happens is that the test is a visual one, except in cases of doubt and that the only appeal to this standard, in any circumstances, will be in cases of doubt. If the purchaser says "I cannot give a certificate to this wheat because it does not appear to be millable wheat" and if the farmer says "I demand a certificate because it is millable wheat," the question will then be decided, no doubt, by that local committee which is being set up to arbitrate in such matters.

Nobody suggests that every sample of wheat is to be analysed for water content or gluten content or anything else. A man who is skilled in buying wheat tests the moisture by feel and by sight. He tests the gluten content by the dryness of the sample, the quality of the wheat and the actual description of the wheat, so that the difficulty does not really arise of a chemist with all his apparatus having to go to every little holding in order to test whether or no the wheat complies with these regulations which define the standard. Only in cases where there is doubt or where a dispute arises between the farmer and the purchaser as to whether a particular sample is millable or not, will the question have to be decided according to some standard which is to be laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The matters referred to in these Amendments are generally accepted as being matters concerning that quality in wheat which relates to its possible use as milling wheat. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon said that the wheat used for milling purposes was not threshed, as a rule immediately after harvest. He appreciates, of course, that "wheat used for milling purposes" has nothing whatever to do with "millable wheat." They are two completely different propositions. It may be that the whole of the seed wheat is millable wheat and the subsidy would be paid on the seed wheat just as much as on wheat of any other sort.

It is no argument to say that only seed wheat is threshed immediately after the harvest. Probably some of the best wheat will be used for seed and therefore that wheat would be the most likely to qualify as millable wheat. Suppose that the net result of this Bill is to make farmers on the average less careful as regards moisture, or let us assume that you get then some viciously minded farmers who like to put the hose on their wheat, to take an extreme case, in order to raise the moisture content. You may then have a set of circumstances in which the average moisture content of the whole crop goes up, let me say, by one or two per cent. There is a slightly more moist crop as a result sold, as a whole, some of it being drier and some of it more moist. The net result would be to put a very heavy burden on the consumer on the average, because out of the 27,000,000 cwts., there would be one per cent. more of moisture to be paid for in subsidies, and if the subsidy comes out at 5s. per cwt., or whatever it may be in the particular year, there will be that extra subsidy to be paid. The crop, in other words, will be artificially raised in amount, and whereas it is estimated by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, that last year the number of cwts. was 20,200,000, in the figures that he gave us for the 2s. 7d. that would have been the subsidy price per sack, if that had been one per cent, more moist, you would have had 20,400,000 cwts., and, therefore, there would have been a subsidy paid on the greater weight.

It is that feature against which we are anxious to preserve the consumer, and I cannot see the difficulty in laying down a standard of moisture, if any standard is to be laid down. I see the difficulty about laying down a standard, but I am assuming that the right hon. Gentleman will do what he said and lay down something as a touchstone to which in cases of dispute you can refer. Of course, millers cannot and will not mill wheat with more than a certain amount of moisture in at the present time, and if the touchstone is to be whether wheat is millable, that is, fit for the mill when it is sold, I cannot see any difficulty in laying down a standard of moisture. There may be a discussion as to whether it should be 12 per cent., 15 per cent., or 17 per cent., but I cannot see any difficulty in making a standard.

The right hon. Gentleman has given us absolutely no indication as to how he will lay down a standard. He has not told us whether he will take the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that he should have a price standard, or whether he will say, "I set up Mr. Jones, and everything that Mr. Jones passes is millable wheat," or whether he will have the object for which the wheat is used, or whether he will have a visual standard or the standard of a certain nose to smell it with. All that we are suggesting is that he should at least adopt this moisture content principle, because that is material to the consumer, and as the right hon. Gentleman has given us no possible indication that the consumers' interest will really be protected, we shall certainly press the Amendment to a division.

Some of the difficulties that hon. Members opposite are anticipating will not arise, because the threshing machine will be a safeguard. It will not take the grain until it is fit to mill, and the farmers have to keep their wheat until it is dry enough to thresh. With regard to rust and fungoid diseases, farmers to-day are fully alive to the advantages of science and research to avoid these troubles and to grow the beef varieties of wheat. Here again the threshing machine is a safeguard, because if you put your wheat through it in a damp condition, with smut in it, it will come out black, and therefore the sample will not be millable corn.

I do not claim to have the knowledge of this subject possessed by some of those who have spoken, but I cannot understand why there should be all this objection to the acceptance of the Amendment. After all, if these things cannot happen, there will be no liability on the farming community. All the arguments against the Amendment have been to the effect that what we suggest cannot happen, yet this Clause is to give the Minister powers for the protection of millable wheat. We are asking for those powers to be somewhat extended, so that if this gluten and other impurities get into the wheat—[Laughter]—I am not an expert on this subject, as I have said, but all the time we have been arguing to protect the consumers. We have never argued with a knowledge of the wheat business such as is possessed by some hon. Members opposite, but we are arguing that the Minister should have the fullest possible powers to protect the consuming community.

If that is so, why should there be so much agitation and excitement on the benches opposite in saying that these things cannot happen and will not happen and that they are all, as it were, Simon Pures and will never attempt to take advantage of anyone? I have listened to most of the arguments on this Bill and have found that hon. Members opposite have all the time been trying to get something more out of the people, and because of that, and because we cannot altogether trust the farming community, or the whole of them—I do not want to put all of them in that category, but, as in other great societies, there is a certain percentage of them that will attempt to do wrong if they get the chance—we move this Amendment for the purpose of protecting the good farmer against the bad farmer. I shall, therefore, be glad if this Amendment is pressed to a Division.

I wish to draw attention to the extreme satisfaction with which many of us listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who told us of his experiences as a, farmer, which were undoubtedly very considerable. He then went on to build up his illustration. Presumably experts always do that from what they have experienced in real life, and the hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a delightful picture of the farmer who would use the hose on his wheat. When his opposition is reduced to that kind of absurdity, I think it is carrying it beyond the bounds of reason.

I do not wish to impute motives to hon. Members opposite, but one would think, from what they have been saying, that they are boosting the sheet iron trade, because in future apparently the public will have their wheat delivered to them in buckets instead of sacks. I would like to support the Minister, but I cannot help thinking that if he had accepted my previous Amendment, he would have saved himself a great deal of trouble. What is happening here to-day is what happens often in public bodies. You set up a committee to do a difficult matter, and then you say, "We will commence to do it ourselves". You have given the Minister a most difficult thing to do, and to put into words what he is going to do, and now you are making it far more difficult for him to do it.

I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. There is no procedure in it dealing with this question other than there is in various trades in the country. The farmers are not the only people who are called upon to give a standard of quality of an article at a price. It is no new feature. Surely, if the agricultural community come to this House and ask for public money to be provided by the working class people who buy bread, we are entitled to suggest that the standard of wheat upon which the subsidy is paid shall be a standard which is in essence practical for milling purposes. One would draw the conclusion from the objections raised to these Amendments that this was a new feature in trading. How many other industries have to provide a. definite standard of article for a definite price, and if that standard is not provided prosecution can take place Surely hon. Members do not look upon the proposals in these Amendments as asking anything more from the farmers than a large part of the British trading community has already got to provide, namely, a definite standard article for the price they receive? I should think that there is more reason than ever, when a trade comes to this House and asks for Government subsidies, to impose a condition that if we are to pay this money out of the pockets of the poor, then we should call upon the farmer to provide a definite standard article.

There are any number of cases which come under the analytical control of the county council in which articles have to be analysed and brought up to standard, or the trader is prosecuted. I do not see in the least, particularly where public money is to be paid, why the condition should not be imposed of a definite standard of millable wheat which can reach the loaf. I do not suggest for a moment that farmers are dishonest; I do not think that they differ from anyone else in the least, but this is a proper condition to impose. There is a moral obligation upon this House that if we give away public money in the form of a levy on the poorest people of the country, we have a moral right to see that the article is up to a, certain standard of quality. Therefore, I suggest that the Amendments call for nothing which is new. There are thousands of traders to-day in the British Isles trading under similar conditions where they have to put an article of a certain standard on the market, and I do not see why we should not call upon farmers to do the same thing, especially in view of the fact that they are being given a public subsidy.

I would ask hon. Members on the Benches above the Gangway whether they realise that this Amendment would add considerably to the price which would have to be paid for the flour and the bread of the poor people whom they are trying to protect?

With regard to this Amendment, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will explain its effect, as I am not quite clear whether it is in order.

The idea is that we shall encourage the farmer who consistently produces good wheat by paying him a premium, and discourage the negligent farmer who does not produce wheat of a high quality.

Does the hon. Member propose that these premiums and dockages shall form part of the deficiency payments?

Yes, it is part of the scale.

Then it is inconsistent with the decision that the Committee has already taken. It is already decided that every registered grower shall be entitled to receive a deficiency payment in respect of every cwt. grown by him, and we cannot alter that now.

This will not necessarily increase the amount of deficiency payments. It will only mean that the deficiency payments will be apportioned between the same lot of people, but will give a special reward to the most deserving farmers. I can quote the authority of Dr. Addison, whom hon. Members opposite are fond of quoting, although when he was in the House they paid no attention to him.

The hon. Member is getting away from my point. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, the Committee have decided that every registered glower shall be entitled to receive a deficiency payment in respect of every cwt. of millable wheat grown by him. The hon. Member now wishes to alter what the registered grower would be entitled to, and I think that that is contrary to the decision of the Committee.

Is there any reason why a registered grower, having qualified for his deficiency payment, should not get an additional sum by way of bonus? There is nothing in Clause 1 to say that the farmer who grows good wheat should not get, in addition to the deficiency payment, a premium for a high standard of cultivation.

That would necessitate recasting the whole financial provisions of the Bill which had already been agreed to by the Committee. I am afraid that the hon. Member is out of order.

This Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.

I understood that it was to be called, for it has reference to a proposed new Clause. Is it not possible within the scope of the Bill to provide for any control over bread prices? Similar proposals have been inserted in other Bills, and I think that in the Marketing Bill there was a proposal of this kind. I should like to know exactly why it is outside the scope of the Bill.

I have given very careful consideration to this Amendment and the proposed new Clause relating to it. I have concluded that the proposed new Clause introduces a new principle, which, although it may be cognate to the subject matter of this Bill, is yet too fair beyond what has been agreed to by the House on Second Reading for me to be able to admit it without an instruction from the House.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, to leave out the words "approved by the Treasury."

12.30 p.m.

We feel that the Treasury all too frequently lay their dead hand upon the activities of various Departments with are desirous of improving the services, and that in no case can the Treasury be a useful addition to this Sub-section. If the Wheat Commission is capable of making regulations such as they are required to do under this Bill, they are able to deal with any moneys which may for the moment be in the Wheat Fund, and we see no reason why the Treasury should interfere in these transactions. We are not pleased with some of the actions of the Treasury, and we think that they ought to be entirely eliminated from any part or lot in this Bill.

I cannot accept the Amendment. This Sub-section carries out the procedure which is based upon previous experience in such matters as the Electricity Commissioners and the Coal Mines Welfare Fund, which is very much in the nature of a levy. The Sub-section requires that certain regulations of the Minister shall be approved by the Treasury, and we think that it is a proper provision in regard to regulations which deal with the banking and investment of the Wheat Fund, the form of accounts to be submitted by the Wheat Commission, and the form of accounts of the Millers' Quota Fund.

I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept this Amendment, finding himself so tied and bound by precedent. In our view the interference of the Treasury with other Departments has been carried a great deal too far. We think the Ministry of Agriculture ought to be capable of looking after these financial matters. Its finance branch is not used simply because, on every occasion, the Treasury intervenes. [Interruption.] I overhear an allusion to the Post Office, and that, of course, is the strongest case of all, but it is not exactly on all fours with this case. We are setting up a body which may eventually develop until it exercises national control over the whole of the wheat business, and I do not think it ought to be brought under the Treasury or that the regulations should have to be approved by them. The matter ought to be left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press this Amendment. After all, we are not quite prepared to nationalise the wheat industry of this country, and any protection which may come from Treasury control ought to receive the support of hon. Members, especially if it leads to economy. Surely the Treasury knows something about finance. If not, why are they the Treasury? Any protection of the ordinary taxpayer is surely to the good. The Treasury can only interfere when they bring some expert knowledge to bear upon a question before the Commission, and I cannot see that any case against the Treasury has been made out. The conditions imposed by the Treasury make, as a rule, for economy and the avoidance of waste and extravagance. They exercise a controlling hand on all other Departments, and their whole traditions support economy and efficiency. Those who are enthusiastic supporters of some particular scheme may complain at times of the restraining hand of the Treasury, but I think it is desirable to have this provision in the Bill. If it had not been in the Bill one would have expected hon. Members opposite and many hon. Members here to suggest control by the Treasury. If I may refer to an Amendment which I have put down to the Schedule, I am asking there that all regulations and by-laws should be subject to being annulled or approved by a vote of this House.

The hon. Member is getting rather far from the subject before us.

Yes, I did not propose to develop that point further, except to say that this proposal is in harmony with the desire of the House to retain its own rights over taxation. Anything that will give the Treasury some restraining influence upon the action of the Wheat Commission and various other outside bodies must surely tend towards economy and efficiency.

We wish to put forward some objections to this Clause and to express our regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the Amendments moved from this side of the Committee. They were put forward with the intention of making the Bill more workable and of giving the Minister the power which he himself seeks in this Clause. He is asking for power to maintain the quality of wheat and to keep records and accounts and to make regulations connected with the payment of the wheat quota, and we wish to give him more power, and regret that he will not accept the generous help which we extend to him and the confidence which we would place in him. We ask that the Minister should have power to maintain the quality of millable wheat at the highest possible standard. Millable wheat means one thing to-day, but if the quality improves, as we hope it will, the standard may have to be changed, and we wish the Minister to have power to take such steps as will maintain the very highest standard. We regret, also, that the Minister has not seen his way to prescribe conditions regarding the moisture content and the gluten content.

I wished earlier to refer to Dr. Addison, and I am sorry that I did not get the opportunity of commending his opinions to the Committee. Hon. Members opposite who were very reluctant to accept his advice when he was a Minister will now listen to his views. He was all for improving the standard of agriculture, and for encouraging the individual farmer to improve his tillage and methods of working. Unfortunately, Dr. Addison is now outside this House. In the last election the crop reaped by the National Government contained much rust and smut and fungoid diseases, and good mill-able wheat failed to find a political market. Dr. Addison is a sample of the good wheat that was rejected, because a high standard of millable wheat was not maintained. We hope that in future the political harvest, as well as the agricultural harvest, will improve, and that we may have the advantage of the presence of men like Dr. Addison in this House when this Measure becomes operative.

Before I call upon the hon. and Learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to move his first, Amendment to Clause 12, I should like to ask him if I am right in assuming that that Amendment and the next four Amendments standing in his name are really one Amendment?

Yes, Sir. I beg to move, in page 18, line 14, after the word "bankruptcy," to insert the words:

"or committee or receiver."

After the rather devastating effect on the right hon. Gentleman of the last Division, no doubt he will accept these Amendments without making us go into the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman, in this Clause of his Bill, seems to have contemplated that the result of the Bill would be to make the farmer bankrupt. We believe that it is more likely to have the effect of making the farmer mad, and, therefore, we think it is really more important to cover the point of the committee of the lunatic than that of the trustee in bankruptcy. The right hon. Gentleman has put in a very proper provision here to deal with cases in which the deficiency payments go to a trustee in bankruptcy where bankruptcy intervenes between the date of sowing and the claiming of the deficiency payment. We think there should be a similar provision to enable cases to be dealt with where, unfortunately, whether because of this Measure or for some other reason, the farmer becomes a lunatic, or where a receiver is appointed of the farm for any other reason—an equitable receiver or otherwise. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared, either by these words or some others, to cover these two cases, which I think he will agree ought to be covered.

I confess that my nerve has not been shaken by the result of the last Division. I have gone very carefully into the points raised by the hon, and Learned Gentleman, and I agree that the principle of his Amendments should be met. There are a number of circumstances in which the relationship of a person to a registered grower may be that of a trustee, and I propose, on Report, to bring forward an Amendment which will cover all such cases comprehensively.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 22, after the word "thereon," to insert the words:

"or under a distraint."

I move this Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who has to be absent from the House to-day on national business. There is a further Amendment which is consequential upon it—in line 24, after the word "charge," to insert the words "or levy the distress." We have put down these Amendments because we have some little doubt as to whether a charge and a distraint mean the same thing, and I believe that their effect would be to carry out the intention of the Clause.

I propose to accept these Amendments. Under the Bill as it is drafted, if the landlord of a person who has sold wheat levies a distress for rent, neither he nor the registered grower would get the deficiency payment, and there seems to be no case for saying that the grower should be deprived of the benefit of the deficiency payment because he is not able to pay his rent and the landlord, consequently, has distrained.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 26, after the word "shall," to insert the words:

"in the absence of any agreement to the contrary in the charge."

1.0 p.m.

There are several later Amendments which are more or less consequential upon this one, and to which I hope I may be allowed to refer. The subject is very complicated, but I cannot see why a person who is entitled to enforce a charge should in every case be precluded from having the right to receive the deficiency payment, even where there is a contract to the contrary, and that is the relevant point. Clause 12 provides that where a registered grower has died or become bank- rupt, and where, by virtue of any charge thereon, wheat grown by a registered grower is sold by a person entitled to enforce the charge, the wheat shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Measure, to have been sold by the registered grower, and the registered grower shall be entitled to receive the deficiency payment. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a man would be in a better position if he were dead or bankrupt than if he had to carry out some of the agreements that may be involved. These agreements are very complicated. The Agricultural Holdings Act may be very seriously interfered with by this exclusion of the man who is entitled to enforce the charge, and there are many other enactments of that sort which may be interfered with. There are also local agreements. For instance, when there is an incoming tenant, the outgoing tenant usually has to leave his wheat in the stack, at any rate until some time after Michaelmas, and the wheat may be sold six months after; but the straw has to be left on the farm whether there is an incoming tenant or not. The deficiency payment in respect of that wheat cannot be assessed until the price is known, perhaps three or four months afterwards, but it will enter into the calculations. In that case, however, the deficiency payment can only go to the registered grower or the trustee, as the Bill at present stands. It seems to me that any agreement which has been made should be kept by the trustee just as it would have had to be kept by the grower himself. In view of the complications that may arise, I think that at least some explanation should be given as to why the person who is entitled to enforce the charge should not have the right to receive the deficiency payment. I have a later Amendment to omit from Sub-section (2) the words:

"Deficiency payments paid under this Act in respect of any wheat shall be deemed for the purposes of Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, not to form part of the proceeds of the sale of that wheat."

I have put down that Amendment because I desire to make an inquiry as to whether this matter has been arranged with the banks. They have certain obligations under Section 6 (1) of the Agricultural Credits Act. Unless that matter has been arranged with the banks it had much better be left out, because it will raise greater obligations.

I want to ask a question about this very complicated matter. In some parts of England, notably the part from which I come, owing to the very bad times through which agriculture is passing, it has been the habit of some landlords to pay the valuation of an outgoing tenant in order to enable the incoming tenant to come in. I had a case of a most excellent tenant who had not the capital to pay the valuation, and I paid it for him. I have a general lien on his stock in the anticipation that, when he goes out, he will be able to repay me, though I do not intend to press him. I think the matter wants looking into. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to make it difficult for men to take farms or to borrow money under the Agricultural Credits Act or in other ways.

The effect of this and the two following Amendments is to provide that a registered grower who has given a charge upon his wheat may agree that the person entitled to enforce the charge shall also be entitled to receive the deficiency payment instead of the registered grower. It is essential that the Wheat Commission should know to whom it is legally bound to make this deficiency payment in order to discharge its obligations. An agreement as contemplated by the Amendment might be made and the Wheat Commission might know nothing about it and, consequently, might pay the wrong person. There is nothing to prevent a registered grower from agreeing in advance with another party that, when he receives the deficiency payment, he will pay it over to that party. That really answers the question of the Noble Lord.

Is the right hon. Gentleman assured that that will be valid in law?

Yes, I am advised that that is so. There is nothing to prevent it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked me a question about the Agricultural Credits Act. I can assure him that the banks and clearing houses have been consulted and are in agreement with what is being done. It is clear that it is necessary to have this provision and that it will not cause difficulties.

This Amendment is of very much more importance than might appear at first sight, and I hope the Minister will give very careful consideration to see that the registered grower has power to pass on any deficiency payment that may become due at a future date. Sub-section (2), which is not one of the easiest to understand, appears to me to mean that a registered grower whose wheat is sold by some persons who may have a charge upon his asset is himself bound to receive deficiency payments that may become due. I am inclined to think that that Sub-section would preclude a registered grower from assigning that asset to another party. I hope the Minister will assure us once again that that is not so, because I can foresee very great difficulty for a registered grower who is bound to receive the deficiency payment and is not allowed to assign what must be certainly, with the present low price of wheat, one of his most valuable assets.

We have now reached one of the most complicated Clauses of the Measure and it is my duty, although it is thought that I have no knowledge of agriculture or of the law, to try to enlighten the Committee a little on it. I do not think this Bill, or this Clause in particular, would have been necessary if all landlords were as generously minded as the Noble Lord who addressed the Committee a few minutes ago.

I rather regret having mentioned a personal case, but I do not mind admitting that I am receiving interest. It is a purely business transaction.

I was thinking of applying for the next vacant farm on the Noble Lord's land. This is a rather complicated Clause, and I was very pleased to see that the Minister was more amenable on it than he has been on any preceding Clause. I do not know whether the fact that he is nervously awaiting the result of the election that is just coming out has affected his mind at all, but we shall see. As one who has had a little contact with agriculture, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind one fact which I think ought to be mentioned. It is assumed on all occasions that the wheat crop will always be an asset. I think I remember wheat crops becoming liabilities after a very heavy period of rain, and, consequently, it is hardly good enough to allow the Clause to pass without some more information about it. I am very delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the reasonable Amendment put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, who is not only conversant with the law but is intimate with agricultural problems as well. I think we have been able to show on this side that we know as much about agriculture as any hon. Member opposite, if not more in some, respects.

There is, after all, something in the Clause which is not absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman has promised before Report to look into the case of a farmer becoming bankrupt or becoming a lunatic. In fact, he might become a Member of Parliament, which is regarded as worse still. We are passing a Bill which provides sums of money to farmers through the Flour Millers' Corporation. I have always understood that no person in the House was entitled to vote upon any financial provision if he himself was to secure any advantage from the money so paid. I do not know whether I shall be treading on very delicate ground in asking the right hon. Gentleman the following question. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is giving me the attention which I think I deserve. Is it possible in any conceivable circumstances that Members of the House of Commons will be able to draw part of the subsidy personally? We have passed Acts of Parliament in the past, and it has always been assumed that no Member of Parliament can vote on any issue in the House of Commons in which he will be financially interested later on. I do not know how many farmers are in the Government, and I do not know how much land they may own or how many bailiffs they may employ.

The hon. Member is raising the question of per- sonal interest in a Vote on the part of Members of the House of Commons which, wherever else it may arise, does not arise on this Clause.

I was only trying to find out the way I was to travel, and, having ascertained exactly my limitations in that connection, I will come back to the kernel of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has never given any explanation of these words. Perhaps he will give me his attention for a moment or two, as I see that he is reading his brief for the reply. I wish Ministers would not keep quite as strictly to their briefs as they are doing in the present Government. The present Government are notorious for this sort of thing. I have not very much reason to complain of the use of briefs on this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has really given a masterful exposition of a very complicated problem, but he has only done so on certain occasions by reading his brief. Will he be good enough to follow me? Sub-section (3) of the Clause says:

"Where in pursuance of any custom or agreement."

Before we part with the Clause, the Committee ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what customs are observed in the agricultural industry of this country. Customs in England vary from those in Wales. I do not know whether there are any customs at all in Scotland. We are entitled to know what is meant by the word "custom" in this connection. Is it right to put it in this way? A farmer may have sold his wheat and have removed to another farm before the crop can be reaped. Suppose that there was a verbal agreement as to the disposition of the wheat and the deficiency payment of the wheat, is that a custom which may vary between one county or another, or between Wales, England and Scotland respectively? Are we going to say in the Bill that those customs have the force of law? I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), if he had been present and had heard what I said, would think that I had been training for the Bar, but I wish to point out that unfortunately in the countryside there are some customs based almost upon superstition, and especially in Scotland, I am told. Are we to say, therefore, that customs which are centuries old are to be regarded as customs for the purposes of enforcing the law? That is a very important point, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, after referring to his brief again, will be able to enlighten the Committee upon the subject.

I should like to know also where the landlord comes in in this connection. The noble lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is a man I respect very much, and I think that he will play the game on all occasions in any transactions that he may carry out on his own estate. In the case of a farmer who is totally incapable of carrying on his business on the farm, who is at the end of his tether and unable to pay his rent, has the landlord a title to any of the money paid under the Bill, supposing the farmer is in arrears of rent? Has the landlord a right to come in and, in the end, secure the whole of the swag? I am fortified in my doubt upon the subject, because, strange as it may seem, at the end of the Clause the landlord comes in, as is usually the case. Sub-section (4) of the Clause says:

"Where by law or custom the outgoing occupier of any land is entitled to receive compensation from his landlord or from the incoming occupier in respect of wheat growing or grown on the land, the amount of the deficiency payments, if any, which may become payable in respect of that wheat to the landlord or incoming occupier shall be taken into account in the assessment of the compensation so payable."

This is a rather important point. I feel sure that every Member of the House of Commons to whichever party he may belong, if he believes in the proposal contained in the Bill must believe, if it is going to give any advantage at all, that the advantage should not accrue in the ultimate to the landlord. It ought to accrue to the man who sows the wheat and reaps it and works the fields and not to the person who simply owns the estate and lets out the farm to the farmer. I have raised one or two rather important points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give us an explanation. The points I have tried to make are these. What have the department in mind when they talk of "any custom," and will any of these payments accrue to the landlord instead of to the farmer, who is responsible for sowing and reaping the wheat? I am opposed to the Bill entirely and I advise my hon. Friends to vote against this Clause because of the very important fact which I mentioned at the beginning. I think that I am entitled to say that the Government, in the main, are backed up by the agricultural interests of this country. There are Members of the Government whose hands are down deep in agriculture. In my view, the Bill is nothing more or less than a landlord's Bill. The farmer is nothing but a decimal point in the whole transaction. The farmer we were told from the Government bench last evening will not matter very much at all.

The hon. Gentleman is now making a speech more suitable to the Third Reading.

I will keep those comments for the proper occasion. I will sit down simply by saying that I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should make the position clear to us today. If a farmer has sown wheat and then goes to another farm, and another farmer comes upon the land he has vacated and reaps the crop, we are entitled to know whether, if the farmer who leaves is in debt for rent, the landlord has any claim to the money which the State is providing under the Act? I do not know very much about the technicalities of agriculture, but I hope that I have been able to enlighten the Committee upon one or two very intricate points in this very complicated Measure.

I should like to call the attention of my right hon. Friend to Sub-section (3), which says:

"Where in pursuance of any custom or agreement the outgoing occupier of any farm leaves on the farm wheat harvested by him, then, in relation to any sale of that wheat within six months after he has ceased to be the occupier of the farm, the wheat shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be of his growing and not of the incoming occupier's growing."

I think that after the words "incoming occupier's," we ought to insert the words "or landlord." Something of that kind is required to safeguard the position. The words "or landlords" should come in there unless of course, the incoming occupier includes the landlord. If that is the case, there will be no necessity to insert the words "or landlords."

The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has asked a number of questions. He wishes to know what is meant by the reference to custom. Custom varies in different districts, and it is in order that those customs shall be taken into account and that we shall not alter or override unnecessarily local customs that this provision has been put in. There are a variety of different arrangements. Some people are farming under very definite leases, while other people are not. It is because of those varying arrangements that we have put in the provision. The hon. Member also said that the National Government represents agriculture, hut he seemed to assume that we were mainly concerned with the interests of the landlord. That is not so. The whole province of agriculture is linked not only with the landlords, but with the tenants and the farm labourers, and it is because we are trying to do something for the common purpose that this Bill has been introduced.

The hon. Member wanted to know whether the landlord is going to get away with the swag. He will not get away with anything except that which is legally proper. There is nothing in the Bill that will interfere with the rights of any of the tenants in regard to this matter. The tenant is fully protected. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) suggested that the word "landlord" ought to be added. I understand that that is unnecessary. It is quite clear that the circumstances of each case will be taken into account and that it will be the occupier, the man who is actually carrying on the farm, who will be dealt with. I am very anxious to listen to any point raised in Debate from either side of the House, and every point will be taken into careful consideration. On this point, however, I am advised that 'it is unnecessary to insert the word suggested.

I beg to move, in page 20, line 1, after the word "notice," to insert the words "in writing."

Our intention is to make quite certain that the notice to be served shall specify in writing the kind of information that will be required. We think it very important that no person shall be subject to penalties or even to proceedings which may lead to penalties unless he has been given full warning of what the Minister requires. The penalties that may be imposed are very heavy. Under Sub-section (1, d) the person will

"be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine."

Will the Minister say what kind of information he has in mind? Paragraph (d) says that a person is liable to penalties if he,

"being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid produce any accounts, books or other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents."

1.30 p.m.

We should like to know whether there is a possibility that a person may produce information of a general kind and not the sort of information required, not having been told specifically what was required, and that he may be held to have been guilty of giving false information. The danger could be easily obviated if the person from whom the information was required was given protection by the notice served upon him stating exactly the kind of information required. If a simple notice were served upon him and there was no clear indication that accounts, books or any documents were required, the person might be put in a very dangerous position. The farmer who will be liable to penalty may not keep books. He is not usually a methodical book-keeper. He trusts to the ordinary methods of dealing between himself and those with whom he does business, and very often he lacks even the simplest form of business method. The Minister will protect the farmer and any other person concerned by making quite sure that there is no possibility of mistake being made in the form of the notice or the response which the person may make.

I think the hon. Member can rest fully assured that his point is covered. Paragraph (d) relates entirely to Clause 10 (1.b), which begins with the words

"by notice in writing. …"

There is nothing in the Sub-section which we are now discussing which enlarges the Commissioner's power in this respect. The use of the word "served", in paragraph (d) covers the point raised by the hon. Member, because you cannot serve orally; you must serve in writing.

After the explanation of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I do not rise to oppose the Clause. We think that this penalty Clause is necessary. The first line of the Clause reads:

"If any person with intent to deceive—"

We had expected from the attitude of the Minister, as expressed in various debates, that he could trust the parties to the various agreements whom he has consulted, but according to this Clause we find that it is necessary to protect the consumers who will make the contributions to meet the quota payments. These powers are necessary in order that proceedings may be taken against those who are guilty of forgery, or who withhold the quota payment. Yesterday when we asked the Minister of Agriculture that the undertaking given by the millers and farmers that very little would be added to the price other than was customary in oases of this kind, and the undertaking with regard to the export of offal, should be embodied in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that the millers and farmers could be trusted to carry out the undertakings which they had given. It is evident, however, from this Clause that the right hon. Gentleman does not altogether trust the farmers and the millers. There may be some black sheep amongst them. The first part of the Clause deals with the issue or withholding of any certificate. This might possibly lead to abuse. In paragraph (a) we are told that if any person with intent to deceive—

"forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used by any other person any certificate, receipt or other document issued under this Act or under the byelaws of the Wheat Commission;"—

and not only that, or

"makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a certificate, receipt or other document as to be calculated to deceive; or knowingly makes any false statement for the purpose of obtaining any such certificate, receipt, or other document or any payment payable under this Act or under the byelaws of the Wheat Commission; or being required by any notice served by the Wheat Commission to furnish any information, knowingly furnishes false information, or being so required as aforesaid to produce any accounts, books or other documents, knowingly produces any false accounts, books or other documents; he shall, unless indicted for the offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine."

We feel that these powers are very necessary. Then we pass to the question of the avoidance of quota payments. The Bill says:

"If any miller or importer of flour, with intent to avoid payment of quota payments or otherwise with intent to deceive, contravenes or fails to comply with the byelaws of the Wheat Commission as to the time at which or the manner in which such payments are to he made, he shall be guilty of an offence."

There is a penalty for this offence. We are not complaining. The only question I want to put is why the penalties vary so much in this Clause. In the first Subsection the person who contravenes any of the provisions of the Clause is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or three months imprisonment or to both such fine and imprisonment, but in Sub-section (3) the miller or importer of flour who intends to avoid payment of the quota payments is to be liable to a fine on summary conviction of an amount not exceeding three times the amount due as quota payment, or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment, and the flour is to be forfeited to the Wheat Commission who may dispose of it as they think fit. In Subsection (4) the person who is guilty of making a false return is to be liable to a fine not exceeding £5 in the first case and in the second case to a fine not ex- ceeding £50. Then we come to Subsection (5) which deals with the body corporate, and if the offence has been proved

"to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or by an auditor by whom any accounts of the body corporate were audited, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

It is strange that there should be this variety of punishment for offences under this Clause, and I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman why the penalties vary so much.

I notice that under Sub-section (1) the penalties provided are subject to the words "on summary conviction." I should like to ask what the penalties are if proceedings are taken on indictment. There is only one penalty for offences under the first three paragraphs dealt with on summary conviction, although they are offences very different in character and degree. I can only assume that if the proceedings are on indictment it is left to the general law. So far as the general law is concerned, for the offence of forgery there are very severe penalties indeed. These other offences under the Bill would be misdemeanours and subject to a much less penalty. I should like to know why there is one maximum penalty provided for offences under the Bill on summary proceedings whereas if you proceed by indictment there is such an extreme difference in the penalties. I take it that the answer to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Hall) is that as the offences are of a varying character the penalties also vary.

We rather welcome what we regard as a first step in the direction of controlling agriculture in some form or other. I am sure that the Minister's party would never permit a Labour Government to introduce into any Bill a Clause which appeared to be so repressive of their agricultural friends. This happens to be the first step permitted by the National Government, and we welcome it because there is no knowing where is may ultimately lead. I agree that many of the penalties seem somewhat stringent and severe. The fact that the Government are starting now to control agriculture, compelling farmers to produce books, documents and certificates and to keep accounts of their transactions, and that if they fail to do these things very heavy penalties can be inflicted, is perhaps a step in the right direction that may be improved upon by a later Government. I notice that when the farmer forges, uses or deals with any certificate or other document he is liable to three months' hard labour. That ought to be a very salutary warning to the farmer.

If the farmer makes use of or has in his possession any document which even resembles a certificate, he is liable to a very heavy fine and three months' imprisonment. If he makes a false statement knowingly again he is liable to very heavy punishment. If he fails to furnish information or furnishes false information, or if he fails to produce accounts, books and other documents, the poor fellow has to go to the courts, and his housing problem will be solved for him for three months. The inspiration seems to be to persuade the farmers by these means to produce books, documents, accounts and that kind of thing. It is a step in the right direction. We hope that no farmer will ever be removed from his farm and placed in prison as a result of his clerical ignorance or incapacity to provide the necessary accounts and that sort of thing. We would be the first to sympathise with him in such a case. But, since the warning is here, there is real hope that in future farmers may keep accounts, so that they will know which of their transactions have been sound and which have been unsound, and that this repressive Clause, with all its dangerous consequences, may ultimately lead to good.

If I may use a common phrase, I think the hon. Member has rather over-egged the pudding. This is the sort of penal Clause that is found in many Bills to make sure that real evasions of the law and real criminal acts are not done. Obviously the Clause has to be rather widely and vaguely worded, because the circumstances vary so much. The point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) was the point made by the hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion. In Sub-section (1, a) you have the words:

"forges or uses or lends to or allows to be used."

These words cover a very wide possible range of offences. I think it is clear that if there was a gross forgery the procedure would be by an indictment, and the offender would get a very heavy sentence, very much heavier than the sentences set out in detail in the Clause for offences that would be dealt with by a summary jurisdiction court. We hope that it will never happen, but it is quite possible that if a man deliberately set out to forge certificates there would have to be a procedure by indictment. Equally there may be cases—I will not say due to something more than negligence, because the whole of this first Sub-section is governed by the words "with intent to deceive"—which will go to summary jurisdiction courts, where the magistrate will have discretion to inflict punishment up to a £100 fine or three months' imprisonment. In the later Sub-sections of the Clause there are various penalties imposed having regard to the kind of offence committed under any one of these Subsections.

The hon. Gentleman who opened this discussion drew special attention to Subsection (5). As I understand it, the whole meaning of Sub-section (5) is that an individual as well as a body corporate, that is a servant of a body corporate, if he commits any of the offences under the earlier part of this Clause, shall be dealt with either as well as the body corporate or individually, and can be punished in accordance with the degree of offence under the previous Sub-sections of the Clause. That is all that Sub-section (5) means. This is the kind of penalty Clause inevitably found in all these Acts in case there are black sheep in any fold. It is intended to make the thing watertight and to prevent any new Act of Parliament like this being exploited by evilly-disposed persons, and so bringing not only themselves but the whole scheme into discredit by doing an anti-social act which would be an injustice to other people.

In Sub-section (1, a) the first words deal with the offence of forgery. The rest of the Clause does not deal with forgery. Is it a proper thing to include in one Clause two offences where one is a felony and the other a misdemeanour? I suggest to the Minister that before the Report stage he should consult with his legal advisers on the matter.

I shall certainly consult the drafters of the Bill and our legal advisers on that point between now and the Report stage. The object of putting these words in here is to bring together the offences dealing with certificates and documents, either the forging of a document or the committing of some misdemeanour much less than forgery.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will succeed in making watertight the fold in which the black sheep are to be placed.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (1), and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(1) A Board shall within two years be established, under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, for the purpose of regulating the marketing of home-grown wheat, and the Minister shall, after consultation with the Wheat Commission, transfer to the Board any functions of the Committee with respect to registered growers as he thinks fit, and any such order shall contain such consequential provisions as may be necessary for giving effect to the transfer."

This Clause obviously shows the Government's desire to make use of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. References have been made throughout the discussions on the Bill to the existence of that Act and the desirability of utilising it for the smooth working of this Measure, but all that has been very much in the air. It has been left to chance, or to the initiative of the farmers themselves and the other interests concerned, to take action. I am going to help the Government by proposing to make this Clause operative. I spent a considerable part of my life in New Zealand, and there I learned from practical experience the tremendous advantage of efficient marketing and agricultural co-operation. I see in a report recently published that New Zealand is conspicuous among non-European countries for the high yield per acre. Its yield of 34.4 bushels per acre far surpasses that of other wheat- producing countries outside Europe, and with the exception of Denmark and Holland surpasses those on the Continent of Europe. That has been due very largely, of course, to the advantages of soil and climate which New Zealand enjoys, but it has also been largely due to agricultural organisation and efficient marketing by which the farmers have been encouraged to join together and to make the fullest use of the natural advantages of the land which they cultivate.

We assume that this Bill aims at including agriculture and at helping the farmers, generally, to raise the standard of cultivation. I think that is not an unreasonable assumption, but if the Bill is to work smoothly it is quite clear that the farmers must cease to look upon themselves as isolated citizens who have no contact with their neighbours. Many years ago when I was a candidate for an agricultural constituency—[Interruption.] Well, the fact that I was recently elected president of an organisation in that constituency shows that the memory which I left behind was not a bad one. I remember making a valiant attempt to organise the marketing of strawberries in that district. Complaints were made, on the one hand, of bad prices received in Covent Garden, and, on the other hand, of high railway rates. I took the trouble to go to the railway companies and to suggest that my friends the market gardeners were being badly treated. As a result of my representations I got an undertaking that at a certain hour a truck should be at the station of a particular market gardening district in order that a low railway rate should be given to the farmers on their strawberries. The undertaking was given on one condition, that they would agree to send their strawberries to market from that station, on the old London Chatham and Dover line, through the same agent, so that the truck could be rapidly cleared.

2.0 p.m.

I thought that was a great stroke for my strawberry-growers and I went back to them very pleased with the offer, but it was turned down at once in the district. It was turned down for the—I do not say practical, but very strange—reason that they would not agree that their neighbours should know the prices they were getting for their strawberries. The one thing to which they would not consent was to send their goods through the same agent. That is tradition more than anything else. If you transplanted these same growers to New Zealand—people of the same race, the same nationality, the same language, the same skill—the whole atmosphere would be changed and they would become at once advocates of co-operation and up-to-date marketing. The result is that there they make the thing pay, although they get lower prices for their produce and have to send that produce across the Pacific and the Atlantic to be sold. The only hope to break down that tradition is in the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—though I admit that it does not look very hopeful this afternoon. I gather from the lusty applause of the First Commissioner of Works that I have his sympathy. But, as a matter of fact, sympathy is not enough. We want that sympathy translated into action by the acceptance of my proposal. I suggest that time is an important factor in this matter and that you may not have such a good opportunity again. After three years this Measure, I hope, will lapse, because I do not desire to keep it on the Statute Book. But, at any rate, it is an instrument for giving the farmers a large subsidy, and as such it is a splendid instrument by which to bring pressure to bear on the agricultural interests so as to bring them to reason. If they were made to understand that within two or three years some form of marketing must be organised under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, a great step forward might be made in that direction and a great deal of the objection to this Bill would be removed if it did bring about better organisation.

Lastly, and most important of all, it would make the working of the Bill very much cheaper. The great difficulty at present is that if you have hundreds of registered farmers, all having to produce these certificates and receipts, it is going to add largely to the cost of working the Bill. But if they are organised in a marketing scheme, it will be much simpler for them to buy their wheat. They will be able to buy it wholesale instead of retail. It will simplify the accounts and incidentally the farmer will get prices for his wheat which will be more evenly distributed, and there will be a, fairer distribution of the dole or bonus or whatever you like to call it, and everybody will gain. By accepting my alternative to Sub-section (1) I believe that the Minister will do a good turn to the agricultural industry.

I support the Amendment, the effect of which would be to change this Clause from a mere pious hope into an order which would have a definite effect. When we were discussing the Agricultural Marketing Act in Committee the point was always made that its provisions would be all right, if only they were backed up by some form of protection or subsidy. Now we have a subsidy, and it is time, therefore, that we saw to it that the marketing side was included definitely and not left merely with the expression of a wish or a hope. As the Clause stands, it merely suggests that a board may be established. We have always taken the line that, if you are giving these benefits to a particular industry, you should insist on proper organisation. In the course of these discussions, the opinion has been expressed several times that full advantage could not be taken of the Bill unless there was organisation of the wheat producers. A great deal of discussion would have been saved if provision had been made for definite organisation of these growers, and the Bill, as it stands, obviously lacks that particular piece of machinery. You have set up a Wheat Commission, you have organised your millers, and the bakers are more or less organised already, but you merely express a hope that the farmers may organise. Why not make it definite, and why not make the benefits of the Bill to the farmers dependent on their taking action?

It may be said that the time given in the Amendment is too short, but it does not lie in the mouth of hon. Members opposite to allege that, because when the Marketing Bill was going through, they took every possible step they could to make it difficult to bring a marketing board into operation. Every time they said you must wait for six months or for five months, and so on, and the Minister had sometimes to accept that position because he was in a minority. There was a certain number of Liberals, but they were not dependable, and therefore we had no real majority at all. There are Liberals who can be depended on now and again, but there are some who cannot and who have now become Conservatives. Hon. Members opposite are beginning to regret that they put in all these rather quibbling little provisions to cause delay, because I see that to-day the Scottish Board is beginning to get under way, but they can easily bring in a short Bill—under our modern procedure these things can be got through very quickly—to speed up the machinery of the Agricultural Marketing Act. We say, in this Amendment, that if you want to get orderly marketing and the best possible advantage out of this Bill, you must insist on the marketing organisation being produced by the farmers themselves, and you must see that every part of the machinery for producing bread is properly organised and, as we wish, properly controlled in the public interest.

I do not propose to deal with the broad issues as to the excellence or non-excellence of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, not to go into the history of the form and development of that. Act, as has been done by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). Suffice it to say that, as a Member of the Committee that dealt with that Bill, I cannot accept his version, even with regard to my own attitude.

The right hon. Gentleman was one of the reasonable Members.

I will pass from that subject except to say that a great many of the Amendments moved to that Bill were not brought forward under any pressure from any Opposition, but were volunteered by the Minister himself. The mere fact that that Act is a permissive and enabling Act makes it impossible to incorporate this Amendment in this Bill, because this Amendment is mandatory, and there is no power in the Act of 1931 to compel anybody to establish a board within two years. There are no provisions in the Addison Act which would enable any Minister or anybody else to establish a board unless there was a voluntary, statutory majority of the producers in favour of it, and unless that could be secured, it could not function at all. Therefore, it is questionable whether this Amendment, if carried, would or could be in order. There is no power at present by which the Minister can impose any board upon the producers, and I think it is very desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should not have power ad hoc to impose a board of this kind.

The hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who spoke of his experience of New Zealand, knows that the great success of co-operation in New Zealand and in other countries rests on the voluntary enthusiasm of the farmers for that very thing, on the fact that the producers themselves are keenly behind it, and that it has not been imposed upon them by politicians. Until we can get that spirit here, we shall not get the farmers here to do it. Personally, I hope, and I am sure the Minister hopes, that we shall see a change of spirit in the producers in this country in regard to the marketing question. I have had exactly the same experience as the hon. Baronet. I have been in most parts of the British Empire, and I have always found that Britishers, who in this country are intensely individualistic and violently Free Trade, the moment they get to a British dominion or colony become keen protectionists; and the two things invariably go together. That has been my experience in Canada, Australia, Africa, and everywhere, and that has been the experience all over the world. That is why there is not a single British dominion or colony that does not go in for agricultural co-operation and tariff protection.

Do not let us, by such an Amendment as this, make an idol of the Act of 1931. I believe that that Act will be useful. That is and always has been my view, and I have adopted the line that, although it has certain imperfections, it may be a useful Act, but let us not do what Dr. Addison himself never contemplated doing. Let us not try to force it on people who do not want it, and let us recognise its limitations. It is quite possible that under these provisions the mere fact that you will be dealing with a Wheat Commission may bring the producers together, not necessarily for the full purpose or all the purposes of the Act of 1931, but for the purposes of grading and the like, and for fitting in with the machinery set up by the Wheat Commission, which will lighten both the burden and the trouble of the farmers and will generally improve the conditions under which wheat is marketed in this country. If you attempt to impose that, as this Amendment seeks to do, you will find that you will have no power to carry out your plan, and you will fail in achieving the object of getting a change of heart in the agricultural community in the direction of better co-operation in marketing.

I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He says that farmers here are all Free Traders and individualists, whereas in the Dominions they are all Protectionists and co-operators. He says that you must not impose these things upon farmers here. May I ask whether the Government have not imposed Protection upon them? Now we are asking that a Marketing Board should be imposed upon them, which seems a reasonable request to make. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are still hankering after this individualism? Anybody who looks at this Bill must admit that they have been largely converted to Socialism. [Interruption.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but what is the Wheat Commission, under the control of the Minister—

Why, then, do you not vote for it?

I am only pointing out that, having taken one step, it seems stupid not to take the other step. The right hon. Gentleman puts control on the millers and as regards the purchase of wheat, but he says that the farmers must not be touched. They must be left to the traditional individualism which has always made the conduct of their trade so unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates, I know, that the trouble about co-operation among farmers is always the minority. Time after time useful schemes of co-operation have been started in this country which would have been a great success and of inestimable value to the farmer if only the minority had not held out. Take a case with which I am familiar, the wool marketing scheme, which was very successful, and led to extra profits for the farmers, and which, for the first time, put English wool on the London Wool Market in properly graded and sorted qualities. But again, owing to the minority of the farmers who stood out, it was not fully successful, and got into a bad way as all co-operative efforts have always done. We are asking that in this case—[Interruption]—I think, if the right hon. Gentleman looks into it, he will find that it is in a very unfortunate financial position. I happen to be interested in it as one of the guarantors.

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the success in Scotland.

The Scots are far less individualistic than the English. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That must follow if co-operation works better in Scotland than in England. It seems only reasonable that, as one of the conditions of this subsidy, there should be this co-operation which everyone recognises as being desirable. It is imposed on the millers, and why not on the farmers? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is unduly afraid of the representatives of the rural constituencies who sit behind him, and who suddenly want to urge this individualism upon him. If he does not like this particular form of alteration in the Clause, I am sure that the hon. Baronet will be prepared to accept another form, or there is a new Clause on the Order Paper which would assist the Minister in expediting the setting up of a Marketing Board in a voluntary way. We want some provision in this Measure which will not merely be an expression of a hope that a Marketing Board will be set up, but which is a definite pressure put upon the farmers to do what the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else agree is desirable. We do ask the right hon. Gentleman, even if be is not going to accept this Amendment, to put into the Bill some provision that will give a very strong and definite inducement to farmers to set up a co-operative board of this sort, and not merely leave it to a pious expression. Unless we can get some guarantee of that sort, we shall certainly have to divide upon this Amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister for a short explanation of the functions that the Agricultural Marketing Board will take. There is a fear in Liverpool that if we establish a Wheat Commission consisting of neutral people, the whole of the business will fall into the hands of the people who are merely interested in selling the commodity. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) brought it out clearly when he said, in advocating the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, that he hoped the farmer would get a higher price for wheat. It seems inconsistent on his part, having strongly opposed this Bill, that he should hope the farmers will get a higher price. I would like an explanation of the powers that will be given to this Board. I am not afraid of them, because any order made by them will have to come before the House, but I merely ask for information.

This body will deal with the registration of growers, the setting up of records, and the like. I cannot think that the buyer will be placed at any disadvantage at all and it is wrong to suggest that the sellers will gain an advantage over other interests by the keeping of proper records. It will do no damage to the buyer, and I even think that it will be an advantage to him.

This is another good case of the devolution of legislation which is coming in the future. With regard to Sub-section (3), does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Rules Publication Act, 1893, was dealt with? We now have this particular provision in every Act of Parliament, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that it was dealt with generally and not specifically in each Act of Parliament that is brought up?

I notice that the provisional orders made under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 are excepted from this Clause. Those provisional orders have relation to the fixing of the standard price. The words in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 are:

"the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament."

That, I take it, is a confirmation by both Houses. Is the Minister satisfied that under his words the mere affirmative Resolution of the House is sufficient? I recollect that under the provisional order procedure which is applicable to various Bills, it is possible to move a resolution referring the whole matter to a Select Committee with the corresponding private Bill procedure. I ask the Minister to consider before the Report stage whether these words are sufficient, or whether he ought not to have in terms that it should be by a simple affirmative Resolution of the House. With regard to Sub-section (1) of this Clause, as to the annulment of orders, no one knows what these orders are. They come on at eleven o'clock at night when the House is dispersing. I make a protest against this procedure, because I hope that the Procedure Committee that is sitting will take this Provisional Order Bill procedure into account, and put in into proper shape and make it effective.

As the Opposition seem to be unhappily suffering from an excess of rust and what they call gluten, whatever that means, I would like to ask the Government whether they do not think it is time they stopped this excessive number of orders which have to come before the House unless definite days are given for discussing them. I emphasise what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has said. The second point which is worrying me is in subsection (3). I want to know why it is that the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which seems to be well known to lawyers, but not so well known in this House, is not to apply. Does it mean the House of Commons will have less control over these orders, or more control? If the Government are going to give the House of Commons less control, we ought to be very chary of passing this Clause as it stands.

I think the point to be borne in mind in considering this question is that these Orders must come into force with great rapidity. It is essential that there should not be delay, because of the possible effect in certain directions [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear Hear"]. We are agreed over that. As far as I understood the point put by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), I think the procedure will be quite simple and will not entail the complicated steps which he suggested, but, all the same, I shall look carefully into that side of the question. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked me whether there is to be greater or less control by this House. I think there is sufficient control by this House, and I hope it will be effective control. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the procedure which would be entailed if we did not have this sub-section (3) would be very lengthy and dilatory. I am not competent to express an opinion on whether we should obviate the necessity for the procedure we are adopting in this case if we took the steps that he suggested. At any rate we have thought it right to secure our position in this particular instance.

I am not at all happy about the answer I have received to the point which I put. I seriously want to know whether the House of Commons will have more or less control if these rules are not to apply. I quite realise that the Minister thinks the House has sufficient control, but I am not concerned about what he thinks. I am worried about whether the House has more control, and I think we might have an answer to that point.

According to my reading of it, it really does not affect the control by the House.

I beg to move, in page 22, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:

"(c) in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section three of this Act references to a cereal year shall be construed as references to the first accounting period."

This Amendment is designed to secure that any exemption certificates issued to provender millers under the terms of the proviso to Clause 3, Sub-section (1) may, for the period ending 31st July, 1933, cover the same period as that for which quota payments will be recoverable from other millers, that is, the first accounting period. It is really a drafting Amendment to provide for the correct application of the Bill to provender millers during the first accounting period.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the only object of this procedure is to make it appear, during the first period, that the subsidy paid by the consumer is less than it will be in a normal year. Assuming that this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament shortly after the Easter Recess, I understand that under this procedure there will be some 15 or 16 months in which to collect the subsidy on one year's output of wheat, and therefore there will be a less proportion of subsidy per sack of flour in the first year than in any following year, provided the price of flour remains the same; and I am not certain whether there is any other reason for this complicated procedure than that of easing the burden upon the consumer at the start, in order that he may not cry out too loudly at the imposition which is being put upon him.

The sole object is to take practical steps to case the burden where it is possible to do so.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 18, to leave out the word "milled," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"produced (whether by milling or mixing)."

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the output of a miller means not simply the flour milled by him, as stated in the definition as drafted, but the flour produced by him whether by milling or mixing. The definition of output will thus be made strictly comparable with the definition of the word "flour" appearing in Clause 18, Sub-section (3), which defines flour as including all products produced by the milling of wheat, except substances separated by the milling, such as wheat offals. The Amendment is accordingly in the nature of a drafting Amendment to ensure complete correspondence between the definition of "flour output" and the definition of "flour" itself.