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

The discussions on the Bill have, I feel, been exhaustive during its various stages, and I think it is clear that no major issue remains to be threshed out. The necessity for the Bill is simply this, that failing an extension of the period the Government would have no alternative but to proceed to the regulation of meat imports during the currency of existing agreements, failing an agreement on levy by the consignors to this market. A week from to-day the Australian Prime Minister arrives in this country, and it would clearly be a most unwise act to proceed to some large decision on policy until the arrival of those who have come so far to discuss policy with us. It would also be impossible to sit still and allow the Act to run out, which would happen by the 31st March. It would be impossible to agree on a policy and get a Bill through the House in time to handle the situation before the expiry of our present arrangements. Therefore, as the House is unanimous in the view that the livestock industry must be maintained, it seems to me that no practicable alternative to this Bill has been brought forward whereby it can be so maintained in the immediate future. On Second Reading the House decided in principle for a Bill of this nature. During the Committee stage it decided the methods by which assistance should be given. The only point is whether the Bill should or should not receive the assent of this House.

It has been suggested that opportunity should be taken in this interim arrangement to deal with certain outstanding questions which have arisen during the administration of the temporary measure under which we are now working, but I suggest that that would be unwise and injudicious. This is a Bill purely to prolong the present arrangement, and, that being so, points such as the position of the producer-butcher, raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on Second Reading, cannot arise for decision, as he himself, I believe, agrees. The case for the producer-butcher was very carefully considered when the original Bill was drafted; in any alterations affecting that category both co-operators and private producers would have to be treated alike, and that, we all agree, would lead us into difficult marginal cases. For that reason the Government decided against touching such cases at all in the prolongation of the present emergency arrangement. I do not rule out further consideration of such cases on their merits in connection with any further scheme which might replace the existing emergency arrangement. We do not deal with any of these matters in the present Bill.

The present arrangements, on the whole, worked smoothly, and they are being prolonged as a purely temporary measure in view of the important negotiations which are about to take place, negotiations which are so important that the Prime Minister of one of the great Dominions, having cancelled all his engagements, is hurrying from the other side of the world to be here, as I say, a week to-day. That being so, the House would do well to pass the Bill. The issues involved have already been thoroughly debated and thrashed out.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reference to the producer-butcher, I confess that, although the point I raised was a very real and substantial one, the administrative difficulties are also very real, and I quite appreciate the hesitancy of the right hon. Gentleman to involve himself in large sums of money and many administrative problems in regard to a comparatively small section of the producers. On the general question it is clear that if co-operative societies who farm on a fairly large scale are to be denied privileges enjoyed by private producers, there must be disturbance and considerable indignation expressed. We are not anxious to delay the proceedings this morning to any length on this question, because the question has been discussed more or less ad nauseam. A final word is, however, called for from these benches.

The emergency provision embodied in the Bill is only one of those brought forward by the Government during the past three and a half years and which, every hon. Member knows, cost the taxpayers and the consumers untold sums of money, amounting to many millions of pounds. Unfortunately those emergency provisions have produced neither stability nor prosperity in agriculture. It is true that wheat producers, with a guaranteed 35s. per quarter, are enjoying greater prosperity than they otherwise would do, but it is equally true that the consumers pay £6,000,000 per annum towards that prosperity; that the arable farmer who produces sugar is better off than he was before 1924, and that the efforts of the Government in regard to the emergency provision for milk have, in the nature of things, to some extent helped that side of the industry. Restrictions or quotas for potatoes and other commodities have had some little effect, but, although every form of quota and restriction has been practised by the Government, it would be a very courageous man who would dare to say that agriculture is prosperous; indeed, the Minister and hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies tell us with a good deal of truth that agriculture, broadly speaking, is not only not prosperous but is in a very parlous plight. One can select odd spots here and there which have been very well fertilised by the Treasury and which are doing better than hitherto, but there is no general stability in agriculture even after all the emergency provisions costing so many millions of pounds. The only question for us to consider this morning is whether the continuance of similar emergency provisions will produce results.

The law of supply and demand, which was the old orthodox economic theory, controlled itself, but when subsidies were introduced the law of supply and demand, being tampered with, tended frequently to do the very opposite from what was desired by the Minister. A short time ago there was the problem of surplus milk. The moment a subsidy was introduced this surplus increased, because the supply was stimulated, and the second state was as bad as, or worse than, the first. If supply be stimulated, even by such a small subsidy as that which we are considering under the Bill, and demand remains constant, it is obvious that what has happened was bound to happen. The price of beef has decreased since last July. The right hon. Gentleman argued some three weeks ago that the stock raisers had benefited to the extent of the 5s. per cwt. given to them as subsidy—he did not argue that the stock raisers were better off in February than they were in July of last year—but whatever the Government gave them in the way of subsidies was pretty well absorbed by the reduction in price. The Government of 1926 gave a subsidy of £23,000,000 to the mining industry, but neither coal owners nor mine workers secured any advantage from the money, because so long as supply was in excess of demand, internal competition remained and individual units continued, prices persisted in falling, and we practically gave that £23,000,000 to foreign buyers of our coal and left the industry actually worse at the end of the expenditure than it was before.

Similar circumstances have obtained with regard to beef. If one excluded every other consideration, when the Government gave 5s. per cwt., the producers would have benefited to the extent of 5s. only if everything else remained constant; but things do not remain constant. That must be the besetting evil of these emergency provisions because the provisions do not quite work out as the Minister or we would desire to see.

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that, assuming the House were to refuse this Measure a Third Reading, his only alternative would be to apply stringent restrictions. But, if no attention were paid to the potential demand for fresh English meat of the quality to be subsidised, and its relation to the spending power of the people of this country, even stringent restrictions might not have the result that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is because of the general failure of these emergency provisions that we have persistently opposed this Measure, and not because any member on these benches is less sympathetic to the farmer or the farm labourer than any member of the Government benches. Clearly, representing largely, as we do, the lower orders, we are anxious to see the maximum number of workpeople employed on the land. It gives me far greater pleasure to see a prosperous farmer than a down-and-out farmer; my natural sympathies are as much in that direction as are those of any member of the Government. But it is forced upon me, from what I have been able to read and from the examination I have tried to make of this problem, that only when the Government settled down to a real general plan, starting, not with the smaller insignificant sections of the industry, but starting at the top with the livestock section, determining what the potential demand for its products is, to what extent our soil and climate are capable of meeting those needs, where imports fit into the general scheme, and continuing with the organisation down to the best means of production, the best marketing system, and a costing system which will be equally equitable to the producer and the consumer—only then do I, at all events, think that we shall be on the high road to agricultural stability and prosperity in this country.

We have in existence a Livestock Committee and a Market Supply Committee; a comprehensive examination has been made of the methods of slaughtering and marketing animals; we have a very formidable document in the Cattle Diseases Report. All of these have made recommendations of their own to deal with some phase of livestock production, but so far no general conception of a plan has been produced and made available, and we seem to be, through these emergency provisions, working to no particular end. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his official duties yesterday, had to interview a body of farmers. They, quite naturally, because they have been nurtured on this kind of thing, want more money from the right hon. Gentleman, and they do not mind if the money comes directly or indirectly. I do not cast any reflection upon the farmers. Presumably, were I a farmer, I should, in existing circumstances, be a whole-hearted supporter of the farmers' organisation; it is neither worse nor better than a steel magnate who wants a duty on the imported product, or a textile manufacturer, or anyone else; but it does not lead us anywhere—there is no finality about it. There is no general plan that one can look at as a whole, though I know that the agricultural industry is a fluctuating industry, and it requires a greyhound, almost, to keep pace with it. Considering the change in diet and the change in the habits of the people, added to the import problem, I know it is not so easy as one would imagine; but neither is it easy to find £5,000,000, £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 and still preserve a quiet, contented body of consumers or taxpayers who are paying the price.

It is more in regret than in anger that we are obliged to oppose this scheme. We do not think it is going to solve the problem, and the only other suggestion that has been put forward from the Government benches is that at some time we may subside from the direct subsidy on to a levy. We have watched opinion in the agricultural world and in the minds of Conservative Members of Parliament during the past year or two, and slowly but surely they are all turning towards our import board proposal; they are moving in the direction in which we have been trying to teach them to move for many years. They have discovered through the Wheat Act that it is a very desirable thing to have an ad hoc body sitting somewhere in obscurity, collecting money on imports, and distributing it to farmers in certain proportions. That may be wise in its way, but they have to go the whole way. If they are to succeed with their import regulations, they will have to import, they will have to control, they will have to sell, they will have to have a costing system which will be equitable all round.

I do not want to detain the House further. I would only say that, no general plan having been produced during the last three-and-a-half years to deal with the industry from top to bottom, we are satisfied that these emergency provisions are not going to produce either prosperity or stability. We should like to see new ideas applied to a new problem. We want to see agriculture prosper, but, unless and until a general plan is produced, which will involve the taking of very vital decisions at 10, Downing Street, we can see no chance of attaining that stability which the Lord President of the Council prays for for agriculture, and which the right hon. Gentleman who is now in charge of agriculture prays for every night before he goes to bed.

I think the Minister was quite justified in claiming that this matter has already been discussed a great deal, and ought not to take up much time this morning, and, therefore, I shall only intervene for a few minutes. I hardly think I should have intervened at all but for the fact that my right hon. Friend, in his very good-humoured, and, if I may add, effective way, when this matter was under discussion last Friday, offered the House a searching analysis of the way in which Members of the party to which I belong had voted or abstained from voting on the previous stages of this Measure. The main point that emerged was the large number of abstentions. I wonder how many there would have been on his own side, if he had given us those figures? The debates that we have on these matters are generally arranged in such inconvenient corners of the week's work that one does not get a very full attendance from any set of members when they come up, but I would like to answer the Minister's good-humoured challenge for my own part by confessing quite frankly that I have abstained.

I find it difficult to vote against these proposals, because quite definitely they do help, though not as much as was expected, a considerable proportion of my constituents. On the other hand, I find it impossible to vote for them, because I hate the subsidy system, and believe that in the long run it can come to no good. As soon as you allow an industry to get a finger into the pie of national funds, it is extraordinarily difficult ever to get that finger out again. I have a peculiar personal habit—it must be very unusual and exceptional, because I do not think any other Member in the House of Commons abides by it—in that I will not vote for things which directly help me financially. However, I will not deal with the matter.

The main point I want to make is this. I quite understand, and I think it is almost inevitable, that no permanent proposals can be put forward, either with regard to imports or with regard to marketing schemes until the conferences have taken place to which the Minister is looking forward. When those conferences are concluded as one hopes in as completely an amicable manner as may be possible, will the way then be immediately open for the presentation of a marketing scheme? Is the scheme now ready but only being held back until the Minister can agree or attempt to agree on these difficult questions of the supplies from other countries? We began a set of actions in this House many months ago which were only based, and could only have been based under the law, namely, the Marketing Act of the present Government, on a certificate having been given by the President of the Board of Trade that a marketing scheme was definitely in preparation. I do not remember the actual words of the Act, and therefore I am not capable of quoting them exactly, but at any rate the limitation on the supplies from Ireland which began many months ago could only be taken under, I think, Sections 1 and 2 of the Marketing Act of this Government. Therefore, one must assume that it was definitely then being prepared, and I would like to hear a few words before we finally leave this matter as to how far that preparation has gone. I know that it is extraordinarily difficult, but when we are having duties put on and limitations of foreign supplies under that Act owing to the fact that a scheme is definitely being prepared, one would like to know how far the scheme has got, and whether, when the present difficulties have been dealt with the scheme will be produced.

Meanwhile what is happening—and I think that it is rather inevitable, and I am not blaming the Minister—is, unfortunately, having a very bad effect on the prospect of schemes in general. The more schemes mean subsidies or duties, the less they mean real improvement in marketing, and, if they are to do any good, they must be primarily improvements in real marketing and only secondarily subsidies, duties, restrictions or quotas. I know that the two go together, but what has happened under this Bill has tended to confirm a tendency which one has already observed in connection with agriculture to regard marketing schemes as being only very indirectly connected with real improvements in the structure of marketing and being primarily protection for the industry, direct or indirect. That is a bad thing. As far as marketing schemes are concerned, there are two schemes besides the cattle scheme which will presumably soon be coming before the industry, the egg scheme and the fruit scheme. The egg scheme, which really does go into the structure of marketing very definitely, is probably good, but I see all around me many poultry farmers who have a tendency to say, "Look what has happened in cattle. They have got protection, a tax on meat instead of a subsidy, and why bother about marketing? The present system may be very unsatisfactory and untidy, but there is no guarantee that any other system will be better. Why not simply give us the same sort of protection, a tax on another article of food, as you are going to give the cattle industry, and let things go on as they are and not interfere with all the old methods to which we have got accustomed."

My point is clear, and I do not want to labour it. This sort of thing, the continuance of a subsidy month after month, and the proposal to replace it by a direct tax on food, with the question of real improvements in marketing very much in the background, will encourage people to think of marketing schemes as meaning subsidies or some other sort of artificial help for the industry, rather than those improvements in the quality and grading of the product which alone in the long run can make marketing schemes really acceptable to, and accepted by the people of the country.

I do not propose to intervene for more than a moment or two, but I wish to express real appreciation of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who spoke from the Labour benches. He really had some regard for the agricultural community, which I was glad to see and to welcome. He spoke of agriculture being in a very parlous state. I do not propose to argue the question of subsidy. I am glad that the Government did come to the help of the livestock industry. There is one thing I propose to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I do hope that these direct subsidies will come to an end very soon and that we shall have the permanent policy of the Government adumbrated and carried through the House. I speak of the question of subsidies because it is really damaging the agricultural interests in the large urban centres. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Government are giving subsidies of £5,000,000, £10,000,000, £15,000,000, £20,000,000, and that sort of thing is being said in the urban centres. They say, "You are being given these large subsidies, and yet you are not satisfied." I could make out a case for agriculture if I wished, as I have the material here, but I do not propose to detain the House.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not go on too long by the Dominions assent. It is quite right for him to consult the Prime Minister of Australia, but do not let the conversations go on too long. I assure the Government that in the rural constituencies a considerable feeling is rising up that they are not being fairly treated with regard to this Dominion problem. I will not say more than that. I support this Bill, and, contrary to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), I shall vote for it, but I hope—and I make an appeal to the Government—that these direct subsidies, which are very objectionable, will come to an end and that the long-term policy will be passed through both Houses as soon as possible. We agriculturists do not want anything but fair play, but we do hope that we shall get fair play from the present Government.

After listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) I have, for once in a way, to admit that he has not given the occupants of these benches a curtain lecture. On the discussion of the Financial Resolution concerning this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman rather twitted us, because he said that we were prepared to support subsidies for the mining industry, but always opposed subsidies when they applied to agriculture. That statement is not true. We on these benches who know a little about the mining industry have never recommended subsidies as a policy. It is true that at certain times in the last 10 or 12 years subsidies have been given to the mining industry, but not with the sole consent of those who speak from the mine workers' point of view. There is, however, this difference between the subsidy to the mining industry and the subsidy to the agricultural industry, that when the £23,000,000 subsidy was given to the mining industry there was a definite and specific qualification attached to it, and that was that miners' wages should be maintained at the then existing rate and that they should not be reduced in any circumstances while that subsidy was in operation. In the agricultural industry such a qualification has not been laid down. There has been subsidy after subsidy given to agriculture for wheat, sugar-beet, milk, meat, and so on, without any guarantee that the agricultural workers were going to get a square deal.

Oh, yes.

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, yes." His attitude is that the Agricultural Wages Board is there to look after the wages, but surely he knows that there has not been a very substantial increase in agricultural wages and that wherever the agricultural representatives have put forward a case for an advance to the workers it has usually been met with a certain amount of hostility from the farmers, who have been receiving subsidies from the State. Therefore, there is a difference between the subsidy given to the mining industry and that given to agriculture.

Does the hon. Member suggest that in any single instance miners' wages were increased during the interim period, and does he not admit that in many cases agricultural wages have been increased during the interim period?

That is very interesting. The miners' wages during the time that the £23,000,000 subsidy was in operation stood at 46·66 above what was known as basic rates. It is also true that the subsidy maintained the wages at a figure higher than the mineowners intended they should be maintained. That subsidy was only given as a temporary measure in order to carry us over to another position. I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman will face the facts he will be bound to admit that the agricultural worker has not received a square deal since the operation of these various subsidies.

I cannot admit that proposition for one moment. My hon. Friend will admit that agricultural wages have risen. He says that the subvention in the mining industry was given to carry us over to the long-term policy. That long-term policy is the policy of quota. When we get to our long-term policy in agriculture we shall be able to discuss the matter frankly, and look for the hon. Member's support for the policy of quotas.

None of us will sit quietly when the so-called long-term policy comes, if we feel that it is not the right thing. One of our chief complaints is that for 3½ years we have been told to wait for the long-term policy, and when there has been no sign of that long-term policy coming along the right hon. Gentleman has said: "Give us another couple of million pounds until we have had time to get our long-term policy prepared." In this Bill he is asking the taxpayers to guarantee during the next three months £1,050,000, with the possibility of that amount being doubled in the next six months. The right hon. Gentleman must admit if he examines the situation fairly that in some parts of the country the agricultural workers have not had a square deal.

Can the hon. Member point to any case where the wages have been reduced?

I may not be able to point to any place where wages have been reduced, but the position is that in some cases they have not been increased and in other districts where they have been increased it has been due not to the generosity of the farmers but to the strength of the organisation behind the agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in some parts of the country nearly half of the wages bill is paid by the State in various forms of assistance. One of the reasons why we oppose this subsidy is because we are not satisfied that up to now the farm worker has had a fair crack of the whip. Last Friday the right hon. Gentleman, rather facetiously, pointed out that during the lifetime of the Labour Government many people lost their work. Does he believe that those men were thrown out of work because of the Labour Government?

The hon. Member is going beyond the question before the House.

I thought you would pull me up, Mr. Speaker. We have been twitted by hon. Members opposite that we are opposed to agriculture. That is not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley said, we want to see a prosperous agriculture, but we have a right to be a little suspicious that there is a good deal of exaggeration from certain quarters about the real position in agriculture. I should like to see an up-to-date costing system in operation in the agricultural industry. Whatever may be said about the mineowners, they can always produce a mass of statistical evidence as to how things are in the industry, but in agriculture we cannot get that. We are often told that books are not kept, and that it is very difficult to know exactly what the position is. I am convinced that in some localities the farmers are not quite in that state of depression that hon. Members try to make out.

With regard to this Bill, we were told last week that we ought to advocate that the working classes should eat English beef. One hon. Member from the other side said that the policy of the Labour Opposition seemed to be that the working classes should be confined to the purchasing of low-quality beef. We have never advocated any such thing. We all know that English beef is far preferable to foreign beef, and nobody enjoys English beef more than the British working classes, but unfortunately many of them have never had the opportunity of getting steak and chips for some considerable time, for the simple reason that they are not able to buy beef at the price in the shops. You may go on subsidising agriculture so long as you like but until you give the mass of the people some purchasing power to enable them to buy English beef you are not going to get prosperity for the industry. We cannot agree with the Bill. We are sympathetic towards agriculture, and we want to see it prosperous, but we do not think this is the way to bring it about. The hon. Member for the Don Valley made an allusion to fertilisers. The best slogan in agriculture to-day is, "Subsidy is the best fertiliser." It is astonishing how they are able to come here and extract money from the British Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not delay his long-term policy, and when it does come I hope that we shall find a solution of the agricultural problems without repeatedly coming to the Exchequer for subsidies.

I must protest against what was said by the hon. Member in regard to the farm worker not having had a fair deal under the policy of the present Government. The farm worker has had the best possible deal that could be given to him in view of the fact that every single product which the farmer produces to-day can only be sold at a loss, world prices being taken into account. The hon. Member was unable to point to any case in which agricultural wages had been reduced. On the other hand, we know, as in Lincolnshire, that there are many cases in which wages have risen. This month throughout the county of Lincolnshire there is to be a rise in agricultural wages.

What is the rise next month?

One shilling per week. I should not be in order in discussing agricultural wages and how they compare with wages in other industries, such as mining, but in Lincolnshire, although farmers have suffered severe losses—there have been many bankruptcies and land has gone out of cultivation, although much land in under-cultivated because farmers are not able to afford the money to cultivate it properly and landlords have not in many cases received any rent, the wages of agricultural workers have only dropped 1s. per week; while at the same time their cost of living has been reduced. Let me point out that in the great industries of the country, to which the Government have not felt able to afford perhaps the same assistance as they have to agriculture, unemployment has been very severe, while in agriculture there is to-day only between six and seven per cent. unemployment amongst the workers. Therefore, from the workers' point of view the policy of the Government has been absolutely justified. While this period of depression has hit many workers throughout the country severely the agricultural worker has, at any rate, been preserved in his employment and in his wages. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) express sympathy with those engaged in agriculture and a desire to help them. He suggested that an inquiry should be undertaken in regard to costings and other matters, by the Government and that afterwards they should come forward with a scheme.

In the earlier part of his remarks he pointed out that in regard to many of the schemes which the Government have put into operation changed conditions have to some extent upset them. Conditions, of course, do not remain the same. Who could have foretold when the Wheat Act was put into operation that the price of wheat, which was then far higher than it is to-day, would have fallen so low as it has. Stated in terms of gold the price of wheat to-day is something like 10s. per quarter. No one could have contemplated the fall which has taken place since the Act was introduced. It has, however, worked remarkably well. Let me say one word on the advantages of this subsidy. None of us like subsidies, and I hope that the long-term policy of the Government will come in as soon as possible. But when all is said and done, when we have said all that we can about subsidies which we all dislike, there is this to be said, that the policy of subsidies has saved the agricultural industry from disaster, has kept men on the land and maintained land in cultivation.

Are there not 28,000 less employed on the land than 12 months ago? Are these men being kept on the land?

I agree that subsidies have not kept the entire agricultural population on the land, but if you compare agriculture with many other industries you will find that the proportion of the population kept in employment compares favourably with the number of workers who have been maintained in work in other industries. In the main the population has been kept on the land, and the land has been kept in cultivation. I do not say entirely, because some land has gone out of cultivation, but in the general result the policy of subsidies has been successful. We are told that people in the towns object to paying these subsidies. I think that people in the towns might remember that they are having the cheapest and best food supplies in the whole world; they are gaining that immense advantage. The policy of the Government which has maintained cheap food supplies of first class quality has played its part in seeing this country through the economic crisis. I go further and say that a policy of subsidies is to the advantage of the working people. The subsidy comes out of the Exchequer, and as the weight of taxation in this country falls on the broadest shoulders, upon those most able to bear it, it follows that the rich pay more taxes than the poor. Therefore, since it is the rich who find most of the subsidy it is the working classes who get most of the benefit. It is difficult to understand why the party opposite, who profess sympathy for agriculture, should oppose this Bill. We in agriculture have great sympathy with the mining population because we realise that the British miner, if he had a chance, would be our best customer. Therefore I cannot understand why a temporary measure like this, passed in a time of severe stress and while a long term policy is being evolved, should meet with opposition from the Labour benches.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) suggested that the benefits which have been showered on British farmers have not been passed on to the agricultural labourers. He suggested that wages have not gone up in the agricultural industry. Let me point out to him that unless these benefits had been showered on the British farmers it would not have been a question of wages going up or down, but the simple question of wages or no wages at all. It is undoubted that had it not been for the various measures passed by the Government during the last two years there would have been a great deal more unemployment in British agriculture than there is at this moment. Let me remind the hon. Member of another fact that he and his friends sat on the Government front bench and were responsible for two years not only for our agricultural policy but for the whole policy of this country. During the two years that they were in office there was a steady drop in wages, not only in agriculture but in practically every industry, whereas now, thanks to the measures adopted by the Government, that process has changed, and once again wages are starting to rise not only in agriculture but in almost every other industry in the country.

I should be neglecting my duty to my constituents if I did not praise and back up the Minister in introducing this Bill. I have the honour to represent a very important constituency in which a large number of people earn a living by producing beef. I think I can claim, and I am sure the House will agree, that the best beef is produced in the fertile valleys of Gloucestershire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—not perhaps in the opinion of this House, but in the opinion of the best judges in this country. What now is the position in British farming? Beef is the only trouble. As far as bacon is concerned the measures taken by the Government have succeeded. As far as cereal crops are concerned the measures taken by the Government have succeeded. As far as mutton is concerned there are no troubles and no grousings; and as far as beef and milk are concerned the whole House will agree that a great deal more has to be done.

In the case of milk we all know that there are two fundamental troubles. There is the trouble of the imports and there is the trouble of the low price of beef. I know in my constituency a large number of farmers who used to produce beef and who ought to do so, but they have now switched over to milk owing to the low price of beef, and as a result there is a local glut in the milk market. If we want to help the milk industry as well as beef we have to do something, and do it now. I believe that if my right hon. Friend will bring in some form of guaranteed price shortly, not only will he cure the troubles of the beef industry, but he will also go a long way to put the milk industry right; he will remove for all time a very large number of the difficulties we see in agriculture, and will go down in history as the greatest Minister of Agriculture we have ever known, and earn the everlasting gratitude not only of the country districts but of the towns.

I believe that people in the towns now realise that their prosperity is linked up with British agriculture. I believe they realise that there has been going on for the last 50 years a steady drift of people from the countryside into the towns, and I believe they are beginning to realise that that drift is not in their interest. They realise that that means more competition in the labour market of the towns and results in lower wages, and in overcrowding in the towns. I believe that they are with us on that issue, and that they are with us because they realise that a prosperous agriculture provides a prosperous market for the goods that they make in the towns and have to sell. They realise that every penny put into the pockets of the farmer or his wife or child is an extra penny that will be spent in the towns. The more you increase the purchasing power of the people of the countryside the more you increase the demand for things made in the towns. For the first time now we have got the towns with us.

There are two alternatives for dealing with the beef problem. We can either use a duty or a quota, or use neither and have some form of guaranteed price. As the House knows, at the moment we are barred from using a duty because of some unfortunate agreements which have been made by the President of the Board of Trade. We cannot use a duty except by agreement with the Empire and the Argentine. Therefore, we must turn down the policy of a duty for the moment. I turn to the policy of the quota. It has been tried for the last three years, and everyone will agree that it has been a ghastly failure in the beef industry, because the price has dropped and dropped for over three years. I have no great faith in quotas, and I come to the only logical solution and the obvious solution of the problem, and that is some form of guaranteed price to the beef producer. There comes a serious objection, how is it to be financed? I think we should be making a mistake if we went to the taxpayer next year or the end of this year.

The hon. Member is now going considerably beyond the Bill. He must make those proposals another time.

Of course, I bow to your ruling, but I understood that this Bill was a Bill to gain time in order that the Government might keep the industry alive while they carried on negotiations with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand and Canada, when they come to this country in about a month's time. I was under the impression that there was to be a kind of informal Imperial Conference and that the Minister of Agriculture was to try to persuade the Dominion Premiers to accept some form of duty in order to finance a guaranteed price to the British producer in this country. I would make one suggestion. I wish the Minister of Agriculture luck in the negotiations, and I hope he will bear in mind two facts. We are the only market for the beef that the people of the Argentine and of Australia have to sell.

Those suggestions should have been made on the Second Reading and not on the Third Reading of the Bill. We must confine ourselves now to what is in the Bill.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will get the Third Reading of the Bill and gain three very valuable months, and that as a result he will be able to persuade the Dominion Premiers to agree to a levy which will benefit British producers.

I want to say only a few words, and I would not say them but for the speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). I do not intend to enter into a competition with him as to which party has conferred most benefit on the farm worker or on agriculture. I may remind him, by the way, that in conjunction with the late Sir Mark Sykes some years ago I brought in a minimum wage Bill for agricultural labourers. I believe it was the first Bill of the kind ever brought into this House. It was not actively supported by the Labour party of the day, it was frowned upon by the Liberal party and it got no further than introduction. I mention that because my withers are quite un-wrung by any charge that the hon. Member may make.

I only want to say this further: The levy is not popular with anyone. Farmers would far rather not have it. It is like a monopoly. It creates an invidious atmosphere and puts the farmer rather in the position of being supported by other parties of the community. That is the last thing that the farming industry wants. I believe that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) had been in charge of agriculture at this particular period he would have been driven to a subsidy to save a temporary situation which looked like becoming much worse, bad as it was. But it is only a temporary matter, and after all it is not a very big sum that is involved. I welcome very heartily the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). If I understood him aright he would not be opposed to a levy if it carried with it an import board. I have always failed to see much difference between the system of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the import board proposed by the Labour party.

As soon as you begin to control imports by quota or otherwise, you do, in fact, set up an import board, and whatever that board does—and we may differ very much as to what it does—still the system of control of imports does carry with it some sort of organisation which may be called an import board. I hope I am not going too far or being too optimistic in saying that the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley did point to the possibility, at any rate, of a common policy for agriculture. His complaint against my right hon. Friend was that, instead of treating the industry as a whole, he was treating it piecemeal. I think the answer to that is quite simple. Agriculture is not one industry. It is several industries, and you have to start individually. But I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend, in all he does in these individual schemes which are brought in to deal with the different branches of agriculture, has in mind one general scheme for the regeneration of the whole industry, and that, I believe, we shall see before long.

I am always very much interested in the efforts which the Minister of Agriculture makes to grapple with the problems of this important industry, and although I do not agree with the various methods he pursues from time to time, I do recognise the fact that he is striving very hard to do something which he considers will be effective in regard to agriculture in general. But I could not understand why a moment or two ago he was rather in- dignant with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). At any rate, he disavowed that, but he seemed to me to be very indignant when he rose on two or three occasions to intervene while my hon. Friend was speaking. I recollect that during the lifetime of the Labour Government he frequently accused us in those days, when there were declining numbers in the agricultural industry, that that was due to the policy the Labour Government were then pursuing. What has he to say about that now?

I hope he will not say anything, as what the hon. Member is saying has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will not pursue that further. I want to refer very briefly to a matter raised by the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who called attention to the fact that the policies of the Minister are exciting some opposition in certain rural distrcts. Hon. Members opposite sometimes think that we, on these benches, have no interest in agriculture, but since the present Minister of Agriculture got busy, I have had a number of contracts with members of the agricultural community, and many of them are by no means satisfied with the policies which the Minister is pursuing. At an earlier stage of the proceedings on this Bill he paid a tribute to the Cattle Committee which was set up under the original Act to deal with this question of the beef subsidy, and he pointed out that it was a very effective body. But a number of farmers—I know

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

This Bill deals with the superannuation of the Civil Service. It is a rather complicated Bill to read, easy to understand but difficult to explain. I shall endeavour to explain it in a few words. It is the result of the report in 1931 of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. A joint committee of the Civil Service Whitley Council considered the report and put forward certain recommendations, which were unanimously agreed to by both the official and staff sides. This Bill contains the outcome of the recommendations of that joint committee. It is, therefore, an entirely agreed measure, and we are very grateful to the staff side for the part they played on the joint committee of the Whitley Council and the assistance they gave.

There are one or two things the Royal Commission recommended which are not contained in the Bill, and which may be missed. The Royal Commission recommended that Civil Service pensions should be put on a contributory basis, but that recommendation, after it had been carefully looked into by both sides, found favour with neither. Therefore, it was dropped, and the basis of Civil Service pensions remains as before. Another small point not taken up is the suggestion that marriage gratuities should be put on a statutory basis. These gratuities have been in existence since 1894, and the staff side intimated that if it were proposed to make any change with regard to marriage gratuities they would insist on a larger sum of money in certain cases, and it would therefore follow that the Bill was no longer a non-contentious Measure. We therefore decided to leave marriage gratuities as they are at the present time, and as they have been for 40 years.

The hon. Gentleman said that this Bill is easier to understand than to explain. I hope he did not mean thereby that it is easy to understand, because I found it extremely difficult to master its details, but I agree with him that it is a Bill which, at this stage at least, ought not to be opposed. Indeed, I cannot visualise the likelihood of our opposing it in the final resort. Whatever its shortcomings may be, it does effect a substantial improvement in the superannuation conditions of the Civil Service, and we therefore welcome it, but I think I can show at a later stage that it is susceptible of improvement in several details and we shall desire to put forward points in Committee. May I make one or two points even now. I notice in several Clauses the phrase "the commencement of the Act ". That would seem to imply that the Bill is to come into operation at some date after it is passed, but I find no such provision in the Bill. When, therefore, is the Bill to come into operation? Clause 2 provides that a civil servant who retires otherwise than on the ground of ill-health not earlier than three months after the "commencement of the Act" may surrender a part of his superannuation in order to provide for his widow or dependants after his death. May I trouble the House with a letter upon this matter which I have recently received, which raises an issue to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will give consideration. It is from an ex-civil servant:

"For years civil servants have been hoping for some such alteration in the Pensions Acts and now the Government intend to put restrictions or limitations on the concession. The change is not to cost the State anything. I am 67, having retired at the age limit of 60. My wife is 67. You can see the vital problem before me of trying to provide for my wife in the manner proposed, but owing to a technicality in the formula the Treasury say, in so many words, we cannot help you.' If I had the money and submitted the proposition to an insurance company, or even to the Post Office Savings Bank, there would be no difficulty. On the other hand, I have my pension, and am willing that part should be surrendered in the words of Clause 2. There must be a number of retired civil servants who feel as I do about the matter."

I think the hon. Gentleman will see clearly what is the difficulty of this man. He is an ex-civil servant who is anxious to be able to utilise a part of his pension to provide an annuity for his widow in the event of his, death. I wonder whether it is possible to extend this provision in Clause 2 to a civil servant who has already retired. As to Clause 3, which provides for one-half the period of any unestablished service being counted for superannuation purposes, here, again, the benefit is limited to persons whose unestablished service begins after the commencement of the Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find it possible to remove that limitation. I would also urge that any person who serves a continuous period of 10 years in an unestablished capacity should become an established civil servant. That affects, of course, mainly industrial workers, and I believe I am right in saying that there is a lack of uniformity in the practice of the various Departments. In any case we think that continuous service for 10 years ought to entitle a man to the benefits of establishment. When we reach the Committee Stage I shall invite hon. Members to consider one or two Amendments, but for the present I venture to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we regard this Bill as providing a substantial improvement in the superannuation conditios of the Civil Service and on that account we shall not oppose it.

The passage of the Bill in its present form will, I venture to think, create certain anomalies, and therefore I wish to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to one or two points. It will be within the recollection of the House that after the War the Civil Service found itself short of com- petent people to attend to the many difficult and complicated matters which then arose. A vast increase in Government work had to be undertaken, and there were not the people available and to be recruited immediately, and so the State decided to take into its service a considerable number of ex-service men. No doubt the State felt that these men had had experience, apart from their ordinary educational attainments before the War—administrative and other experience during their service—and would be useful to the State, and so they were recruited in a temporary capacity of course. None of them felt that he had any claim on the State for permanent employment. No doubt they understood clearly that they were asked to come temporarily to help, and they were given a job. When a man is out of a job he does not look ahead 10, 15 or 20 years and bargain with his prospective employer, he is glad to have the job.

From time to time Parliament has felt that it would be setting a good example to employers all over the land were it to treat these men with particular consideration, and at various times measures have been brought to this House to ameliorate their conditions of service. Parliament went so far as to set up a special class, the "P" class, embracing the greater number of these men, and gave them some assurance of permanent employment, though without pension. A little later, as their term of service became comparable with that of the permanent Civil Service, Parliament still felt that something required to be done for them, and in October, 1932, Parliament decided that they should be pensionable.

It became a question as to who among them should be pensioned, and the decision was come to that practically all should be pensioned who had done reasonable service. One of the long standing rules of the Civil Service is that a man must do at least 10 years in establishment in order to secure his pension; it is also a rule of the Service that normally you retire at 60. I am well aware of the exceptions, but they only go to prove the rule which is that, officially, retirement takes place at 60 years of age. Unless a man can be established by the age of 50 so that he may put in 10 years' service, he cannot in the normal course of things be established. That does rule out many thousands of men who join the Service at an age considerably older than the boys and girls who make up the bulk of the Service.

The Government said, "We must make a concession," and for some reason which has never been explained they chose the extraordinary period of two years and eight months. They said that those who had not exceeded the age of 50 at the beginning of 1930, two years and eight months before the concession was brought in, should be included, although they had not served the normal 10 years. That satisfied all those who were let in; about 8,000 men came into the category of those who receive pensions. I am glad that they did, but I confess I can see no reason why those 8,000 should have come in and 2,000 should have been left out. It is about those 2,000 that I wish to speak. Merely because on 1st January 1930, some 2,000 of the same men happened to be over 52 years and 8 months of age, they were left out of those provisions.

The ordinary business man, or the trustee of a corporation, when considering a pension scheme for his staff would probably say, "We want a pension for those of our staff who have done reasonable service, but we cannot pension those who have done negligible service. We are bound to draw some line between reasonable service and negligible service." The Government might say the same, and we are entitled to examine whether this is such a case. Could the Financial Secretary show that the service of these 2,000 was negligible, there would be a strong case for leaving them out. No one could plead that men with one year's, or five years' service should be pensioned, but, if the Financial Secretary will look into the matter, he will see that these 2,000 men have already served an average of 15 years. By the time they retire, which will be round about the age of 65—and here I reach the point upon which an hon. Member just now tried to guide me; it is the practice of the Service to retire most of them at 65 and some departments have even agreed with the staff side that they shall retire at 65; all departments have discretion to keep them on, and the general practice is to do so—they will have served between 15 and 25 years. The only fair way to decide whether you should or should not pension a servant, is to determine whether or not he has done reasonable service. On the figures, I cannot help thinking that all those men, or the overwhelming majority, will have done reasonable service for the State.

Notwithstanding what is in the Bill, I hope that the Financial Secretary will indicate that the Government will be willing to withdraw the Financial Resolution and to introduce another which will make possible an Amendment which I will put to him. I know how difficult it is to find time, but I can assure the Financial Secretary—althought I have had no conversations in the matter—that it is very unlikely that he would meet with opposition or find the matter contentious or controversial. He could introduce an amendment in Committee to rectify this error, which is an injustice to a small number of civil servants, and it would cost very little, although the question of cost should not perhaps be the primary consideration, if an injustice be proved.

There is another aspect of the matter. The Superannuation Act of 1887 gave power to the Treasury to count back service—temporary service—for pension purposes; I think the words were "provided there were special circumstances in the case." That power still remains, and it seems to me that it would not be going too far to suggest to the Treasury that if they cannot amend the Bill they might under their special powers remedy what I believe is a defect in the law, and what appears, so far as it has been put before me and my colleagues in the House, to be an injustice which the House and the country would wish to see remedied. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he can go into the matter again and see whether, without committing himself to it, he can introduce an amendment in Committee which will meet the case of these men.

I speak on behalf of the Staff Associations principally, and as chairman of the recently formed committee on the Civil Service in this House. I want to make plain at once that the attitude of those for whom I speak is that the Bill embodies an agreed solution of certain matters which came before the Whitley Council. Those for whom I speak have no wish to offer opposition to the passage of the Bill or to move any Amendment; they take the Bill as it is put forward, and the provisions contained in the Bill have been fully accepted.

I wish on their behalf to make a protest as to certain omissions to which the Financial Secretary refers as having been subjects not agreed upon at those discussions. Although those discussions could not reach agreement, the matters upon which they did not reach agreement are regarded by the Service as highly important.

The object of my speaking is to draw attention to two omissions of the first importance. There are two questions which concern two different classes of servants, the lump sum service men, a much smaller body, some 2,000, and a much larger body of unestablished classes. In regard to those two classes, the Service are anxious to do what they can to remedy the omissions in the Bill. We do not propose to make any motion to that effect at this stage. The number concerned is very large. I am told that there are 130,000 permanent employés of the Government who are not pensionable, however long they may serve. Then there is another number of persons who in their earlier years were employed on State business but paid by others—high bailiffs of county courts and other classes of that kind. The staff associations put forward the point that, as these persons were paid, whether directly or indirectly, out of State funds, their services should be pensionable. I want again to emphasise the fact that this Bill is an agreed Bill, but we want to draw the attention of the House to certain omissions which affect large bodies in the Service, and who perhaps may receive consideration at a future stage.

I would like to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and by the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Sir I. Fraser). I accept the statement of the Financial Secretary that this is an agreed Bill, but it is only agreed as far as it goes, and it does not go quite far enough. I have had personal experience in the service of a public body, and was associated with men who were in very similar circumstances to those who are called unestablished civil servants. I remember perfectly well men who had served from 30 years to, in one case within my own personal knowledge, 43 years—a man who was described at that time as temporary. I, with half the service that he had, became pensionable, and he did not. We were doing at the time practically the same work, and I can quite understand his feeling with regard to the difference in treatment between him and myself.

In the Civil Service there are similar cases. There is a great number of men with whom I have been associated and whom I know very well, unestablished civil servants who have been in the Service for a great number of years, and I do not think it can be said on any basis that their treatment is fair in comparison with other civil servants who are doing almost the same work, and in some cases quite similar work, but who are getting entirely different and very much better treatment. I think the Treasury might take the point of view that it is time that this admitted evil was remedied. I say that because I still hope that, although no agreement has been reached up to now, the Government will consider the position of these unestablished civil servants with long periods of service, and will make some better provision for them than has been made hitherto.

The only other point that I want to make is rather a technical one, and I may be entirely wrong as regards my interpretation of it. Perhaps the Financial Secretary might at any rate note it. It concerns the method, laid down in Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, of computing the amount of pension to which a man or woman shall become entitled. It says that the pension

"shall be computed upon the average annual amount of the salary and emoluments of his office during the last three years of his service."

Those words do not quite cover the point that I have in mind. A case arose recently in the municipality of which I am a member with regard to a man who had qualified for pension and was going out. When we came to compute his pension—the words were different from those in the Bill—we found that, according to the Act under which the pension was granted, it must be calculated on the amount of the salary received during the last five years; and, owing to the fact that the man had been ill for at least three years during his last five years of service, the amount of his salary was very considerably reduced. I do not know whether the words in this Bill would cover a case of that kind, or whether such a man may or will be treated in the way in which we were compelled to treat him, although the borough council were of opinion that that treatment was unfair and not the kind of treatment that they would desire to give him. Because, however, of the interpretation which we were bound to put on the Act, we were not allowed to grant him as large a pension as we should have desired. As I have said, the words of that Act are not the same as those of this Bill, but I would ask the Financial Secretary to give consideration to this point, so that, if such a case does arise, it will not be possible for the man to lose what otherwise he would be entitled to just because he happened to have a long illness during the period of three years on the basis of which his pension is calculated.

May I add a word in support of what has been so fully urged by my hon and Gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Sir I. Fraser), and also by the hon Member who has just sat down? It concerns in particular two small classes of unestablished ex-service men, one numbering 100 and the other 1,900. I feel a particular interest in these men, as I was a member of the Southborough Committee, which reviewed the Report of the previous Lytton Committee. We found that there was a considerable amount of hardship among these unestablished civil servants, and, as a result their condition was to a certain extent improved. Further improvements have been made since that time, but there remains this margin, which, I would plead, ought to receive very sympathetic attention. I am told that -these men now have an average of from 14 to 15 years' service, and when they reach the age of 65, if they have not previously retired, they will have done on an average something like 24 or 25 years service. It may remove any objection that there may be on the part of the Treasury to remind the Treasury that the amount involved is not large, but I plead, not merely on that ground, but on the ground of justice. I think that these men, having been in the service of the State for so many years and having been doing the same work as the established civil servants, should now receive finally the right to pension, and I would commend that view with all the force that I can to the Financial Secretary.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing regret that the Treasury has not taken advantage of these amendments of the law to introduce a consolidating Measure which would cover the whole gamut of the Superannuation Acts. They extend over more than 100 years. They number about a dozen separate Acts of Parliament, only one of which has been repealed, and there are something like a score of other Acts dealing with superannuation which may affect the lives of at least 1,000,000 to-day and another 500,000 in succeeding years. They are extremely difficult to understand. The Financial Secretary and other speakers have referred to the difficulty of understanding this Bill and I submit that it is scarcely fair to the House, and is certainly unfair to those persons who ought to benefit from the Bill and from the Superannuation Acts in general that they should not be able to buy for a few pence from the Stationery Office a concise statement of the law as it stands in regard to their financial privileges. There is a vast amount of dead wood in the Acts, and it is exceedingly difficult, even for anyone who is highly skilled in legislation, to know how these people stand as regards their rights. I will quote from the Act of 1834 a Section which has never been repealed:

"Provided always, and be it further enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend. …to give any Person an absolute Right to Compensation … or to deprive the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, and the Heads or Principal Officers of the respective Departments, of their Power and Authority to dismiss any Person. … without Compensation."

That doubtless is a necessary provision, and I fancy that it has been pretty completely modified during the past 50 or 60 years by the practice of making provision for appeals and the like. It is, therefore, pertinent to say that in the last eight years Parliament has only passed in all 14 Consolidation Acts as compared with the 14 which were passed in the single year of 1925. We are getting very much behind in the way of consolidation, and I hope that this matter, which is an outstanding example, may be taken up at a very early date. It is not enough that we should treat the employés of the State justly. We ought to be able to assure them that they are being treated justly and that the law is clear and explicit. I gather from the text of the Bill that it will introduce fresh anomalies in regard to a good many classes of public servants who are not technically covered by this Bill but who are in municipal and other local employment and whose rights are covered by local and special Acts, which are neither repealed nor mentioned in this Bill.

The hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Sir I. Fraser) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to look into the question relating to ex-service men and pointed out that there were 2,000 persons who, on account of certain anomalies, were not allowed to come under this Bill. I want to put in a very energetic plea for another section of men and women working under State control in connection with the public-houses at Carlisle, Gretna, and at some other place, the name of which fails my memory at the moment. There are between 300 and 400 men and women working in the State controlled refreshment departments, and at the brewery, and for the last two or three years I have been making a big effort on their behalf to try and get them brought within the four corners of the Superannuation Acts. I am hoping that the Financial Secretary may see his way to meet the situation during the Committee stage of this Bill, so that these men and women may be brought within the scope of the measure.

It is generally known that all Government employés, whether working at Woolwich Arsenal or the Dockyards or under any State department, have some kind of superannuation scheme applying to their particular section, and it is a great hardship to these individuals—I do not know whether you would call them Civil servants or not—who are doing useful work under Government control, that no provision is made for them. As hon. Members know, the refreshment houses at Carlisle and Gretna are doing useful work and are paying propositions; they are making a good profit. I believe that both the men and women concerned would be quite willing to sacrifice a small portion of their salaries or wages in order to be brought within the scope of the Superannuation Acts, so that when they reach the age of 60 they may be assured of some kind of superannuation pay to help them to live in decent comfort for the remainder of their lives.

I would say, in replying to the various points that have been raised, that the greater part of them refer, not to the people affected by the Bill, but to those not affected by it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) was in some doubt as to the meaning of the phrase, "The commencement of the Act." The Act will not apply until it comes into force, and it will come into force as soon as it receives the Royal Assent. He also raised the point whether it could not be made retrospective so as to affect ex-civil servants as well as civil servants. I am afraid that there is very little hope of that being possible. It would cost a great deal of money to the State, and he must realise the technical difficulties which would arise in applying Clause 2 of the Bill, to which he referred, to people who have retired from the Service altogether. The actuarial value of the pensions they could arrange to settle upon their survivors would probably be so slight in this case, they themselves having received the full pension in the interval, that it would not be worth while.

I will look into the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). I think that the meaning of the Clause is perfectly plain. I appreciate the point he raises, and I should think that Civil Service salary means the salary that should be received quite apart from any deduction for illness. That is a legal point, and I will get advice upon it before the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) made a suggestion that we should introduce a consolidating Measure. It is a very in- teresting suggestion and should have full consideration. He could hardly expect, as he seemed to suggest, that we should consolidate superannuation for all workers in all forms of service, not only-State service but local service also.

I did not mean to stress that point.

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend did make the suggestion. It has been suggested that certain provisions with regard to the position of unestablished Civil servants are not fair. The only answer to that is that there may be hard cases, but whoever enters the Civil Service without knowing what the conditions are? If a man agrees to undertake a certain position knowing what the prospects of pension are, it is not quite just to say that the Government have acted unfairly towards him, because he would never have undertaken the obligation unless he had been prepared to do so on the conditions which were then in operation.

The position of those Civil servants, especially the ex-service men, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Sir I. Fraser) referred, is one with which I and the whole House sympathise very deeply. That position could not possibly be dealt with in this Bill, because it is concerned with superannuation only. The Bill has nothing to do with altering the status of unestablished Civil servants, and I do not think that it would have been possible to include a Clause in a Superannuation Bill to make unestablished civil servants established Civil servants. If it were possible, it would have to form the subject of an entirely different measure. I will bear in mind everything which my hon. and gallant Friend and other hon. Members of the House have said with regard to the position of Civil servants and others. There are always doors open through which negotiations can be undertaken in order to improve the position of Civil servants, whether established or unestablished. I am sure that the House will recognise and remember that an enormous number of unestablished Civil servants have since the War, especially the ex-service men, received benefits to which they were not actually entitled by the terms under which they entered the Service. There are others who are outside that category, and if it were limited, as hon. Members have suggested, to a certain number of ex-service men, they must realise that the extension of it to them would imply an extension to a great many other people, and the cost would be much more than has been represented. The hon. Member for North St. Paneras did not expect me to give him any undertaking. It would be impossible for me to do so or to hold out hope of a further extension to unestablished Civil servants, but the matter will continue to be considered. In any case, it will not affect this Superannuation Bill, which I am glad to think has the general approval of the House.

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

I do not think that I need detain the House for long over this Bill. It is a machinery Measure. If we wanted to discuss the question of land purchase in Ireland we should have to take up the history books because that question has occupied the attention of this House for the last 65 years. This Bill is one to wind up something, which is very unusual so far as this House is concerned. Through the lapse of time and the successful work which has been put in in Northern Ireland, which is all that the Home Secretary and I are concerned with, and the success of the policy, the transfer of agricultural land in Northern Ireland will shortly be completed. The Bill is for the purpose of winding up the system of land purchase, for abolishing the Commission and the consequent transfer of its functions in so far as some of them will have to be continued administratively.

It was in the year 1925 that we passed the last Act dealing with this matter to which I need refer. That date is of some importance so far as Northern Ireland land purchase is concerned, because up to that time the system was principally voluntary. In 1925 this House decided to provide for the completion as soon as possible of the transfer of tenanted land by automatic procedure on a compulsory basis. That is now very nearly complete. The process of compulsory purchase consists, first of all, of transferring the land from the original owner to the Commission and then afterwards re-vesting it in the tenants. The first part of that process, that of transferring the land from the owners to the Commission, is to all intents and purposes complete now, but there is the re-vesting to do, and that is not quite complete. The allocation of purchase money is very difficult work and may take a little further time owing to the difficulty of proving titles. When the Act was passed in 1925, bringing in the compulsory system the previous legislation on a voluntary basis was not repealed. Therefore, that also, although it is not very much in use at the moment, is to be brought to an end. The Bill introduces no new principle. I may say, in passing, that its provisions have been agreed upon between ourselves and the Government of Northern Ireland as being the best machinery for clearing up what remains to be cleared up.

Let me deal briefly with the various Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1, sub-sections (1) and (2), when read in conjunction with the First Schedule make the necessary provision for the cessation of the advances and also enables the Commission to be wound up when its services will no longer be required. The allocation to which I have referred is done by the Judicial Commissioner, who is also a judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland. The second Clause transfers these judicial functions which the Judicial Commissioner now carries out, to the High Court. Clause 3 and 4 are machinery Clauses, dealing with various administrative powers regarding the liabilities which still remain on some of this land, for example, as indicated in Clause 3, the right of taking turf, mineral rights, drainage and so forth. These functions are transferred to the Ministry of Finance of the Northern Ireland Government. Clause 5 transfers the function of making rules. Clause 7 transfers property. Clause 8 enables officers to be transferred to the Supreme Court. Clause 9 provides for the con- tinuance in office of the Land Purchase Trustee in whom to a certain limited extent the purchase money is vested, due to the fact that there is no other public trustee in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the land purchase trustee fulfils functions which are carried out in this country by the public trustee. Clause 10 deals with the transfer of records. Clause 11 provides for sums which had to be treated as expenses of the Commission to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament and then recovered from Northern Ireland. Clause 12 gives power to make Orders in Council, which can be prayed against, in order to tidy up in even more minute detail what remains after we have dealt with the matters in the Bill. All these Clauses deal with the winding up of the land purchase system and of the Commission itself, and the transfer of the powers of the Commission.

There is one further matter, which is dealt with in Clause 6 and also in the third paragraph of Clause 1, which refers to the existing financial arrangements resulting from the transfer of the land under the various Acts since 1870 onwards. These are not affected by this Bill. For instance, the payment of the annuities at statutory rates by the tenants, and the conditions governing the securities issued for the payment of the purchase money to the landlords. The Government of Northern Ireland will have no power to interfere with these matters at all. If they wanted in future to inaugurate some new system of land purchase, they would be free to do so under the provisions of the Bill, because it would no longer be a reserved matter, provided they do not interfere with the consequences of sales under the existing schemes. In respect of these the financial arrangements with regard to annuities, and so forth, will continue as they are now. Under Clause 6 the residuary functions of the Commission which are not transferred either to the High Court or to the Minister of Finance of the Northern Ireland Government remain with the Treasury here. These are concerned mainly with the maintenance of sinking funds and other financial matters which are necessary to preserve the general financial structure of the whole system, which has existed for so long.

I am not sure that I have made the position very clear, but the House may take it from me, as one who has often raised objections to this kind of Measure, that I am satisfied that it is nothing but a piece of pure mechanism to wind up certain functions which are no longer needed, and to transfer remaining powers where they need to be transferred. In conclusion, I should like to offer a word of praise to the members of the Commission, their predecessors, and their staff, for the way in which they have brought this very important work, which has been the subject of so much discussion in the past, to a successful conclusion.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not do himself justice when he said that he had not explained the Bill fully. He has thrown a great deal of light on what to me was a very dark problem. I have been trying to wrestle with the provisions of this Bill for the last day or two. The measure is no doubt necessary, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will be good enough to tell us what the final cost is going to be to this country. Are there any liabilities which will remain on the Treasury in this country in respect to these financial arrangements after the winding up. When you wind up a company you do not always get rid of your liabilities. Some one suffers, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members from Northern Ireland will not be offended if I say that some of us think that Northern Ireland has had a fair share of money from this country from time to time. We would like to know, therefore, whether this is a real winding up, whether we are cutting adrift from any liabilities we may have with Northern Ireland in this matter.

I have been looking into the historical background of this business but it is not worth while entering into that to-day. It is much better left alone. There is one point in connection with the transfer of the staff which I should like to mention. I notice that whenever there is a question of superannuation for members of a staff employed by the State that the word "officer" is always inserted. While I agree that the superannuation of officers of the State should be safeguarded, I do not think that their interests alone should be considered, and I want to know whether the other members of the staff, who are going to be transferred to this new authority, will also be safeguarded in the same way as far as superannuation and other kindred interests are concerned. In regard to Orders in Council, we are getting a little familiar with this sort of proposal in Bills brought forward by the Government, and it will be our duty to scrutinise them when they are issued. Finally I could almost wish that we were not only winding up this problem of land purchase in Ireland but winding up the present national government in this country.

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

This Bill can be described as a typical Friday afternoon measure. It is simple, non-controversial and deals with one subject matter, namely, the transfer of moneys from the out-of-date Military Savings Bank into the hands of the United Services Trustee. It has already passed all stages in another place without any opposition. The position briefly is this. Eighty years ago charitable funds of regiments were compulsorily placed in the hands of the Military Savings Bank; there was no option. The Secretary of State had to make himself responsible for the capital and had to fix the rate of interest to be paid on the capital. It is true that it was fixed subject to a maximum. Since 1849 regimental charitable funds have not been subjected to this compulsory treatment.

There are only 35 units affected by the Bill, and the total sum involved is only £71,000. The Bill will free these units from this restrictive treatment and bring them into line with similar funds in the possession of other units of the Army. It will not be necessary for units of the Army which desire to invest funds of this kind to invest them in the Military Savings Bank, if they do not wish to do so. They do, in fact, prefer to have them invested in the United Services Trustee. Most of the other funds are now held and invested by the United Services Trustee, into whose hands, if this Bill becomes law, this £71,000 will come. That is the whole story.

May I at this point, in order to have time, say a word on the Financial Resolution; it may be convenient. Paragraph (1) of the Financial Resolution is in case the invested money now in the Military Savings Bank, upon sale, does not realise the capital sum standing to the credit of the various funds. In that case, the Treasury will have to make good the deficit. That is a very unlikely contingency so long as the transfer is made during the lifetime of the present Government, because during the lifetime of the present Government, Government stocks will stand high. The reason for Paragraph (2) is that the United Services Trustee charges a small acceptance fee for the new fund, and so that this particular fee of £125 shall not come out of these funds it has been provided that it shall come out of Army funds. That is all I have to say on the Financial Resolution. Finally, the Bill is desired by the 35 regiments who are concerned, it will remove an anomaly, which is unnecessary and vexatious and I hope that the House will not resist its passage into law.

We will, of course, give the Bill a clear passage. It is true that it is a typical Friday afternoon Bill, but at the same time it would not have been unprofitable if we could have had a discussion on the wider question as to what moneys are now in the hands of the United Services Trustee, and the many charities which they represent. It would have been of great interest to many hon. Members. Of course, we cannot discuss that on this Bill. At the same time, I think it would be of great value if the War Office could see their way to let hon. Members know what are the various charities connected with the various units in the Army now coming under the United Services Trustee, because it would facilitate hon Members in asking for help from these funds for any of their constituents, and be of considerable value to ex-soldiers who do not know where to go for financial help.

It is true that this Bill is a kind of carrying over. It deals with what was a hand-to-mouth business in the days before there was anything like the provision for the soldier that there is now. It has been necessary, as the Financial Secretary has said, to get legal authority for the taking of these funds out of the present savings bank, and putting them under the United Services Trustee. Looking at Clause 2 I assume that there will probably be no financial responsibility as far as this House is concerned, no charge upon Army funds. But I can see that it is necessary to have such a Clause, because there will be obligations arising, and the change-over may have the effect of limiting the amount from these funds which is at the disposal of the United Services Trustee and that he may have to call upon the Army to make up that small amount.

The position with regard to paragraph 2 of the Financial Resolution is that the United Services Fund charges a fee before taking over any new fund. That fee will be about £125, and that fee it is proposed to pay out of the Army fund and not out of the charitable funds.

I was alluding to Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill, which provides that:

"Any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make any payment under the foregoing Sub-section shall, in so far as they are not provided out of the proceeds of the sale of investments held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Military Savings Banks, be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."

I thought the hon. Member was referring to paragraph 2 of the Financial Resolution. The position is this: If the sale of the investments does not realise the capital, then the Treasury would have to make the deficiency good, but this money at present is invested in 3½ per cent. War Loan, and that is standing sufficiently high at the moment to ensure that there will be no loss to the country and no charge on the Treasury.

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that only 35 regiments are concerned with this matter. To the commanding officers of those 35 regiments it will be very pleasant news to hear this news for for the first time. It is good of the War Office, when so little is known about these regimental funds, to declare that there is something for the regiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) raised a question which is worthy of consideration. He asked whether there is a list of all these regimental associations and charities, and said that such a list would often be a help as a means of supplementing a pension paid by the Pensions Ministry when that pension is not a full pension. There is such a list, and some years ago it was sent to me by the Ministry of Pensions. I do not know whether it was prepared by the War Office or the Ministry of Pensions. It ought to be more advertised, so that all may know that there is such a thing.

The Financial Secretary has been asked questions several times lately about a Yeomanry fund which was supposed to have been started during the South African war. I do not know whether it is in the list of associations that will be included in this scheme, but if there is such a Yeomanry fund I think it should be handed over, and be dealt with in the same way as the funds of the 35 regiments referred to. As far as I can make out these funds are to be handed over to the commanding officers of regiments. Is that so, or are they to be handed over to the associations?

The Yeomanry are not included in the long list which I have here. Therefore it would be out of order to discuss that matter. My hon. and gallant Friend's other question was as to the handing over to the commanding officers. The existing conditions will probably continue in almost every case. The Secretary of State can make orders with regard to the use of the interest on these funds, but it is his determination that what happens at the present moment shall be continued if it is felt that it is in the interests of the fund itself. At the present moment the capital cannot be touched by the commanding officer and the association, and so in future the capital will be kept intact and it will be only the interest that is used.