House of Commons
Wednesday, February 19, 1936
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Coventry Corporation Bill (by Order),
London and Middlesex (Improvements, etc.) Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill (by Order),
Surrey County Council Bill (by Order),
Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
York Gas Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Persian Gulf (Slave Trading)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any recent reports from British officials as to the existence of slavery between the Persian Gulf and Persian Baluchistan; whether conditions on the British side of the frontier are satisfactory; and whether he can state when the last report was received?
My information is that it is many years since the British authorities in the Persian Gulf reported any case of slave trading in the Gulf, and that this trade does not in fact exist. I understand that this is borne out by the last report from the Political Resident and Consul-General at Bushire, which was received last July. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that conditions on the British side of the frontier between Iran and British Baluchistan are satisfactory.
Italy and Abyssinia
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposals have been made since 19th December, 1935, by the League of Nations or the French or British Governments to secure the cessation of hostilities in Abyssinia by means of negotiation and arbitration?
No, Sir.
Is there any truth in the rumour that the United States Government are taking steps in this direction?
I am afraid I have not heard the rumour.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken by the military attachés on both sides to obtain particulars as to the numbers of casualties in the Italian-Abyssinian conflict for the information, both of the League of Nations and of this country in general; and, if not, whether instructions will now be given for this to be done.
I am satisfied that the military attaches at Rome and Addis. Ababa are taking steps to supply, in accordance with their standing instructions, all possible information regarding, the progress of the Italo-Abyssinian war, including casualties suffered by the belligerents.
Does my right hon. Friend know whether the figures that were published in the Press this day last week were accurate?
I am afraid I could not possibly say.
Could the right hon. Gentleman say, or inquire, whether any prisoners, wounded or unwounded, have been taken by the Italians?
I have no information on that point.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire, whether he has any information as to the total number of Italian subjects transported from East Africa through the Suez Canal since 1st November to the last available date?
While I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the figure, I am advised that approximately 19,000 Italian European and Colonial troops and civilians passed through the Suez Canal from the Italian Colonies in East Africa between 1st November and 6th February.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer this traffic through the Suez Canal is going to be tolerated?
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is paying for the Italian native troops interned in British territory?
The cost, which is not expected to be great, of maintaining deserters detained in Kenya is being borne in the first instance by Kenya funds. A supplementary Estimate is being presented to Parliament to provide a grant-in-aid to assist Kenya in meeting this and other special expenditure.
Is it not a fact that during the War any troops interned were paid for by the country in whose service they used to be, and not by the country to which they fled?
If the Government made application for payment the obvious reply would be that we could let them go back.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in war time you could not let them go back?
Then the question of payment, surely, does not arise at this stage.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of treating deserters from the Italian troops with the utmost hospitality, so as to encourage more desertions?
Our hospitality in this matter is well known.
Why is the cost not expected to be very high?
Because they are not too numerous at the moment.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the Customs examination at Berbera is sufficient to ensure that the air service between Eritrea and Italian Somaliland is not used for the transport of Italian military officers or communications of a military nature between the two seats of hostilities?
The local regulations at Berbera are such as to ensure that persons travelling by the service in question would include no military personnel in uniform or persons carrying arms or travelling in any sort of formed body even if in plain clothes. I have every confidence that these regulations are being properly enforced.
Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the House to infer from the reply that it is not possible for this service to be abused by civilians, or military officers travelling singly in civilian clothes?
The object of my answer is to convey that our information is clear and definite that we do not think that the regulations are being abused. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary, I will investigate it.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has information as to the quantities of petroleum and other oils exported during the course of the last six months from British controlled properties in Persia to Italian East African possessions; and how these figures compare with similar exports in the two periods of six months preceding?
The only direct shipments of Iranian potroleum products to Italian East Africa during the 18 months ended 31st December, 1935, have consisted of very small quantities of fuel oil for ordinary industrial use.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has information as to the quantities of petroleum and other oils exported from the' countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations (including protectorates and mandated territories) to Italian East African possessions during the course of the past six months; and how these figures compare with similar exports in the two preceding periods of six months?
The latest available records have been examined, and from these it would appear that no petroleum products have been exported from countries in the British Commonweath of Nations (including protectorates and mandated territories) to Italian East African possessions during recent periods. Normally the total imports of petroleum products into these territories are very small.
Bulgaria (Trial)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the trial of Damian Veltcheff and others in Bulgaria; and in view of its international importance, will he keep himself informed of the situation that may arise?
I understand that the trial began on 18th December and is still in progress. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Minister at Sofla naturally keeps me informed of events in Bulgaria in the normal exercise of his duties.
In view of the grave danger to the peace of the Balkans that is involved in this trial, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of urging moderation and clemency in certain circumstances?
I do not admit that there is danger to the peace of the Balkans, and I think it is a mistake to make that suggestion.
League of Nations (Mandates)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by the Norwegian delegate during the discussion in the Sixth Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last, that the mandate system should be extended, in view of the fact that the principle of colonial mandates applied as yet only to a relatively small part of the colonialtion of the mandates principle might world, while a broad and liberal applicacontribute to the maintenance of international peace; and whether the Government are prepared to consider the possibility of action on these lines, provided other countries did the same?
His Majesty's Government are always prepared to consider on their merits any proposals that may be submitted to the League of Nations on any subject.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this point was covered by the late Secretary of State's speech at Geneva in September last?
That is another question.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether the mandate for Wolverhampton will be granted to Birmingham?
Tripoli (British Subjects)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what circumstances Father Zalges, a Maltese priest, has been ordered by the Italian Government to leave Tripoli; whether he is a British subject; and how many other British subjects have recently been deported from Tripoli and on what grounds?
I have no information on this subject, but am calling for a report.
Royal Navy
Building Programme
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any special action has been taken for the immediate laying down of an increased number of cruisers and destroyers in view of the heavy strain which will be imposed on the national resources next year by the replacement of capital ships.
No special action has been taken for the purpose mentioned.
Is my Noble Friend satisfied that there will be an adequate amount of skilled labour available unless the suggestion made in my question is carried out?
That question is always under consideration.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has been come to with regard to the building of capital ships; and, if so, when tenders will be invited?
I regret that details of the proposed new construction programme cannot be given in advance of its presentation to the House.
Training Establishments
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken to open any further training establishments in the United Kingdom, in view of the increased requirements which will follow the rearmament programme?
Some additional training accommodation has been found to be necessary to provide for present and more immediate needs of the Service; particulars of this will be found in the Supplementary Navy Estimate, copies of which are now available. Future requirements are still under consideration, and it would be premature for me to make any statement at present.
Air Defence (Near East)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what time it would take after a bombing alarm was given to the aircraft carriers at Alexandria to get the crews on to the airplanes and the airplanes off the ships?
I regret that this information is not for publication.
Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the figures are, and could he give them to me privately; and is he satisfied that the ships that are in commission at the present time are in such danger?
I do not agree with that assumption. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the training of the pilots is made as effective as possible.
Could the figures be given to me privately?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that British ships now lying in the harbours of Alexandria, Haifa, and Aden are adequately equipped to defend themselves against attack from the air?
Yes, Sir.
Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement which appeared in the Press two days ago, from Lord Rothermere, to the effect—
The hon. Member cannot ask whether statements in the Press are accurate.
May I put it in this way? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the rumour that British ships now lying in harbour at Alexandria, Haifa and Aden are completely at the mercy of the Italian Air Force, and like sitting rabbits against hawks.
That is a quotation from the Press.
Contracts
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the total value of work placed in the depressed areas under the special arrangement by which Government Departments in allocating contracts give a preference, other things being equal, to places scheduled by the Ministry of Labour as depressed areas?
I regret that complete information is not available. I can, however, state that during the period 1st April, 1934, to August, 1935, contracts to a total value of £5,000,000 were placed with firms in the areas shown in Parts I and II of the First Schedule to the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, excluding the Clyde. The latter area received contracts of roughly similar value over the same period. A concrete example of consideration of the unemployment position in shipbuilding districts was the arrangement made by the Admiralty for the hull of His Majesty's Ship "Sheffield" to be constructed at Walker-on-Tyne. I should also add that a bigger proportion of our steel requirements has been allocated to the special areas than would have been the case under normal circumstances, but the value of the increased allocation cannot be easily assessed.
May I ask whether the £5,000,000 was allocated under ordinary tender, in view of the fact that the hull of His Majesty's Ship "Sheffield" was placed specially; and is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to give the House the whole story of the placing of that contract? May I ask, also, with regard to the steel, whether that steel is required for building or for special purposes?
In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, the steel is required for building. Surely the important point is the value of the total allocation of orders placed in a depresesd area, and not the way in which the money is divided.
The point is, are these special orders or only ordinary contracts?
Cape of Good Hope Station
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what ships are allocated to the Cape of Good Hope station and what ships are at present actually on the station?
His Majesty's ships allocated to the Africa station are "Amphion," "Carlisle," "Bridge-water," "Milford," "Rochester," "Penzance" and "Afrikander," which is a depot ship. All these ships are actually on the station at present, except "Amphion" and "Penzance."
His Majesty's Ship "Amphion."
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what expenditure over and above the contract price has been incurred to date in respect of the machinery defects of His Majesty's Ship "Amphion"; and whether such expenditure will be a charge on public funds or be borne by the contractors?
It is not yet known to the Admiralty what expenditure has been incurred by the machinery contractors for His Majesty's Ship "Amphion" in respect of the machinery defects. The question of ultimate liability for such expenditure has not yet been determined.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the date of completion of His Majesty's Ship "Amphion"; the date of her acceptance trials; and the date when she is expected to commission?
It is expected that "Amphion" will complete in the course of the summer, but it is not possible at this stage to forecast the exact date.
Sabotage
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the further case of sabotage to one of the vessels of His Majesty's Navy while in dockyard hands, he will take early steps to increase the proportion of tested, established, and pensionable employés in such yards and to reduce the amount of casual labour now permitted to work therein without adequate steps being taken to ensure they are of British nationality and to investigate their antecedents?
In view of the fluctuations of work in the Royal Dockyards, it is necessary to enter numbers of work people on a casual basis. All practical steps are taken to investigate their antecedents and character on entry.
Is my Noble Friend aware that pensioned men are being re-employed, with the result that their pension is deducted from their pay; and could he take steps to see that these men retain their pensions, for which they have subscribed and to which they are entitled?
I do not think that arises out of the question on the Paper, but I will certainly look into it.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the sabotage in the British warship "Cumberland"; and whether he can make a statement?
A case of sabotage in His Majesty's Ship "Cumberland" was reported on 16th January, and inquiries were immediately instituted, which are still proceeding. Precautions against acts of this kind have already been taken in all Dockyards, and further measures are. now under consideration.
Egypt
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where the negotiations with the representatives of the Egyptian Government for a settlement of outstanding differences will take place; and who will be in charge of the negotiations on behalf of His Majesty's Government?
The conversations to which I referred in my reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 4th February, will take place in Cairo, and will be conducted by His Majesty's High Commissioner on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
Kenya (Defence Force)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the maintenance of the Kenya defence force falls on the general funds of the territory; and to how much it amounts?
Yes, Sir. The amount provided in the Estimates for
Mining and other Concessions and Licences and Permissions Issued. Number in existence previous to 1934. Number issued during 1934. Number abandoned or revoked during 1934. Total Number at 31st December, 1934. Mining Grants 1 — — 1 Mining Concessions 3 — 3 3 Dredging Concessions 2 — 1 1 Claim Licences (surface washing) for Gold. 1,113 734 237 1,610 Claim Licences (surface washing) for Precious Stones. 659 177 103 733 Claim Licences (surface washing) for Gold and Precious Stones. 2 — 1 1 Exclusive Permissions to prospect for Gold, Silver, Precious Stones, Valuable Minerals. 6 9 1 14 Exclusive Permission for Bauxite. 1 — — 1 Prospecting Licences, renewable annually. 1,093 1,131 — 1,131
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the land examined by the geological surveyors of British Guiana has been made available to local gold-diggers and how much to other interested bodies?
The total area examined by the Geological Survey is 4,050 square
1936 is £4,112, which covers all charges, in connection with this Force.
British Guiana
Mining and Other Concessions, Etc
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of concessions granted for the working of gold and diamonds in British Guiana; the areas covered by such concessions, and the dates on which they were approved; and the names of the concession holders together with their claims and the results of the operation of such claims?
With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the information which I have available. The hon. Member will appreciate that the labour involved in obtaining the particulars for which he has asked in respect of all concessions and claims, would hardly be justified.
Following is the statement:
miles, of which 380 square miles are held under exclusive permissions to explore or concessions to mine or dredge gold by interested bodies, some of which are local. Of the balance of the area examined by the Survey it is calculated that about 2,700 square miles are of the type of ground suitable for the methods of local gold-diggers.
Cocoanut Industry
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position of the cocoanut industry in British Guiana; and what steps are contemplated for the encouragement and improvement of this industry?
During the great depression of recent years the cocoanut industry of British Guiana, like all other cocoanut industries throughout the world, suffered severely from low prices, but there was some recovery in prices at the beginning of 1935, which has since been maintained, and the protection and preference which this industry enjoys should enable it to take full advantage of this improvement.
How was the production last year compared with 1933?
I have just explained that, owing to the drought, it was not satisfactory.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think this will be an advantage or a disadvantage to the milk industry of this country?
Rice (Export)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the present position of the rice industry in British Guiana; and will be cause inquiries to be made into the working of the Rice Marketing Board with a view to ascertaining whether the functioning of this board is in the best administrative and industrial interests of the colony?
As the result of the greater attention paid to the organisation of the export trade, the exports of rice from British Guiana have shown a substantial increase during recent years, although they suffered a setback in 1934 owing to damage caused by floods. I have no reason to think that the Rice Marketing Board is not functioning satisfactorily, but if the hon. Member has any particular point in mind I shall be glad to consider it.
Sugar Industry
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the position of the sugar industry in Essequebo, British Guiana; on what grounds the government of the Colony found it necessary to appoint a commission to investigate conditions there, as a result of which investigation workers in a district of formerly flourishing sugar estates are being advised and assisted to leave their homes and holdings for other sugar estates in Demerara and Berbice, thus creating unfavourable wage and living conditions in those places; and whether steps will be taken to protect the interests of sugar estate workers in Essequebo?
The Essequibo Coast Commission was appointed in December, 1934, to inquire into the position arising out of the imminent abandonment of the last surviving sugar estate on that coast. The measures to which the hon. Member refers are being taken in order to assist sugar estate workers in Essequibo, a district where sugar production has ceased to be economic, to obtain work in those districts where there is more demand for labour.
Is it not a fact that these labourers are worse off in the new place than they were in the old, and will he see that what they are getting is not less than they had before?
The question on the Paper has nothing to do with wages. It is about people who are thrown out of work.
Scholarship
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in 1931 the regulations for the colonial scholarship in British Guiana were altered; that as a result teachers in the schools there are being penalised and restricted; that harsh conditions are imposed on winners of the scholarship; and that no examination for the scholarship was held in 1934; and will he direct a full inquiry into the whole matter of this scholarship with a view to improving the conditions of its grant and allaying the present dissatisfaction among teachers in the Colony?
I am aware that as a result of the recent change in the regulations it was not possible to hold an examination for the British Guiana scholarship in 1934. I am not aware that the revised regulations are regarded as detrimental to the interests of local teachers or that harsh conditions are imposed upon scholarship winners; but I will ask the Governor for a report.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a committee recommended certain things with regard to improving the conditions of this scholarship, and that those recommendations were ignored by the Director of Education?
I will certainly inquire into it.
Hong Kong (Mui-Tsai)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the committee which recently reported on mui-tsai in Hong Kong declared that the sale of girls was an undesirable practice, but that any attempt to stop the practice was doomed to failure; and whether he accepts this declaration or adheres to the policy of recent governments in Great Britain, who have all declared in favour of its abolition?
Yes, Sir. I have seen the report. I need hardly say I agree emphatically that the sale of girls is undesirable, and I do not accept the view that it is impossible to suppress the practice in countries under our jurisdiction. The mui-tsai system is illegal in Hong Kong, and it has been the policy of His Majesty's Government for years past to secure its final disappearance. The policy is one that I intend to pursue vigorously, and I am taking every step towards that end now.
Are the Government taking steps to ensure the disappearance of the system?
Yes, a system of inspectors and then prosecutions. I have looked into the prosecutions and I find there are far too many fines. I should like to see imprisonment as a deterrent.
Tanganyika (Grants and Loans)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the British taxpayers' money has been put into Tanganyika by way of grant-in-aid by loans free of interest, and by loans at interest, respectively, since we took over the mandate?
The following assistance was given to the territory in the years before 1926:
Have any of the nations that are very anxious to have mandated territories offered to pay this money?
No. I think they would experience difficulty also.
Air Mail Contracts (Panamerican Airways)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the sums annually paid in respect of mail to Pan-American Airways by the Governments of the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana; and the dates on which existing contracts expire?
As the answer necessarily contains a number of figures, I am, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The amounts paid to Pan-American Airways by the Governments of Jamaica, Antigua, and British Guiana for the carriage of mail during the year 1935 were £6,138, £437, and £1,194, respectively. No contracts have been concluded with the company by the Governments of Antigua and British Guiana, but that concluded by the Government of Jamaica is due to expire on 24th September, 1944. In the case of Trinidad the average annual payment made to the company for the carriage of mail is £1,840. The agreement concluded with the company by the Government of Trinidad is due to expire on 2nd January, 1941. In the case of the Bahamas the Government has contracted to pay the company a. subsidy of £1,000 per annum for the five years ending on 30th June, 1939, to be increased to £2,000 per annum for the years 1937 to 1939 if the revenue of the Colony for those years exceeds a fixed sum. The Company receives in addition payment at an agreed rate per pound for all mail transported from the Bahamas, but I am not aware of the actual amount paid on this account during 1935. The agreement governing the last mentioned payment will expire on 14th December, 1939.
Trinidad (Constitution)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the communication addressed to him from Trinidad requesting increased non-official representation in the Legislative Council of Trinidad; and whether it is proposed to grant the same in the near future?
The hon. Member presumably refers to a question asked in the Legislative Council in Trinidad last July. The question was referred to me by the Governor, and I have replied that no specific proposals for the amendment of the constitution of Trinidad are at present before me and that in the absence of any information as to the precise nature of the changes, if any, which may be generally desired, I do not feel able to make any pronouncement on the subject.
Seeing that very important changes have been made in the constitution of other Colonies will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether similar changes cannot be made in Trinidad?
If there was anything like a general demand of course I would consider it, but I have no such evidence.
Palestine (New Trunk Road, Jaffa-Haifa)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated cost of completing the Jaffa-Haifa road; and what approximate proportion this sum bears to the present unexpended balances and surplus of the Palestine treasury?
As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of 11th December last, in which I gave him the figure. As regards the second part, the most recent statement available shows that the surplus balance of Palestine amounted at 31st January to about £6,340,000. A large portion of this is, however, already provisionally earmarked for various purposes.
Is the proposed road between Haifa and Jaffa in process of construction, or have estimates been called for?
Oh, yes, it is in course of construction.
Gold Coast
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Governor of the Gold Coast a report on the alleged acts of violence committed against certain native inhabitants of the state of Wassaw Fiase; whether an inquiry was held into these allegations by order of the Governor, and, if so, by whom it was conducted; and whether he will publish any reports received from the Gold Coast on these incidents or will allow access to such reports at the Colonial Office?
No special inquiry was held into the events to which the hon. Member refers, but my predecessor received a full report on the case from the Acting-Governor of the Gold Coast in October last. I do not propose to publish this report, but I will lay a copy in the Library of the House.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the police force of the Gold Coast is recruited from the northern territories and known as the escort police; and to what extent these police are, in general, familiar with the language and customs of the southern states, against whose inhabitants they are required to carry out punitive measures?
The escort police, most of whom are recruited from the Northern Territories, form approximately 60 per cent. of the total police force of the Gold Coast. As regards the second part of the question, I am asking the Governor for a report.
Libya (Maltese)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that, owing to a legal technicality, Maltese born in Libya between the years 1912 and 1925 have been recently pronounced to be Libyan and not British subjects; whether he has received any representations from such persons; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
I am not aware of any recent legislation on these lines, nor have I received any representations from persons affected by such legislation. I understand, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is calling for a report upon the matter.
Royal Air Force
Aerodromes (Norfolk)
asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make concerning plans for additional aerodromes in the county of Norfolk?
Two Royal Air Force aerodromes are at present under construction in Norfolk. I cannot say at this stage whether any further sites in this county will be utilised.
Bombing Practices (South Carnarvonshire)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to give assurances that every precaution will be taken to ensure that the natural beauties of the district will be kept unspoilt, the bird life safeguarded, and ancient buildings preserved during bombing practices at the proposed new air base in South Carnarvonshire?
I can assure the hon. Member that all possible regard will be had to the amenities to which he refers. There is no danger to ancient buildings, as the bombing will take place out to sea, and experience at other ranges shows that no harm results to bird life.
Fleet Air Arm
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any alteration in the degree of control by the Royal Air Force of the Fleet Air Arm or the coastal area is contemplated; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?
The answer is in the negative.
Rations
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the quantity of butter consumed in the Air Force during the last 12 months; the quantity of margarine consumed for the same period; the quantities home-produced; the quantities imported and the countries of origin; and also the extra cost had the foodstuffs mentioned been bought and produced solely in this country and the ranks supplied with butter?
It would not be practicable, without disproportionate labour, to supply a complete answer to the hon. Member's question, but I am informed that during the last 12 months some 200 tons of margarine, all home-produced, were supplied by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to Royal Air Force stations at home. Margarine, as the hon. Member doubtless knows, is not issued in kind, but is purchased by the men's mess out of a cash allowance.
The right hon. Gentleman in his answer has referred to margarine only. There is no mention of butter in his reply. Will he answer my question with regard to butter?
What sort of education is there in the Royal Air Force which requires people to buy 200 tons of margarine a month?
May I have an answer to my question? I am entitled to an answer.
I have answered the question. The question asks what quantity of butter was consumed. My answer is to show that margarine is issued.
Am I to understand that butter is not supplied to any members of the Air Force, either officers or the ordinary ranks?
Not as a ration.
Diesel Engines
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of Royal Air Force machines equipped with Diesel engines?
No aircraft with compression ignition engines are at present in service in the Royal Air Force. Four aircraft of different types, however, have been, or are being equipped with such engines for experimental purposes.
Night Flying Accidents
( by Private Notice ) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is able to make any statement in reference to the loss of two Royal Air Force bombing aeroplanes forced down in the Channel and in Sussex?
I only received notice of this question a few minutes ago, and therefore I apologise to the House if the information which I give seems insufficient, but it is all that I have been able to collect up to the present moment.
It is with the deepest regret that I announce that the aircraft in the first case mentioned by the hon. Member, which was engaged in night operations, failed to return to Boscombe Down. At four a.m. notification was received from Le Bourget that a Royal Air Force machine with a crew of four had alighted on the sea two kilometres off Le Havre semaphore station, that one member of the crew had been picked up and that the search was being continued. A later signal reported that the aircraft itself had been located 200 yards from shore but the three members of the crew were still missing. Subsequently Pilot Flying-Officer Page reported that all four of the crew had tried to swim to shore. No further information has been received. The names of the missing personnel are Sergeant Walter Job, Aircraftman II. William Watkin, Aircraftman I. Cyril Bickham.
In the second case during air operations on 19th February, 1936, Sergeant Charles Deakin was piloting a Heyford aircraft of No. 10 (Bomber) Squadron with three passengers. At approximately one o'clock the aircraft struck the side of a hill at Beacon Hill, near Midhurst, resulting in the death of the three passengers. The pilot was slightly injured. The names of the dead are, Sergeant Edward McDermott, Leading Aircraftman George Westlake, and Leading Aircraftman Cyril Adam. I should like to express my Noble Friend's and my own deep sympathy with their relatives.
Has the Minister any information as to the height at which these machines were flying, and also whether in the case of night manoeuvres there is an adequate number of aerodromes equipped for use in connection with night flying if it should be necessary to use them in an emergency?
All necessary arrangements for using aerodromes at night are, of course, made, and flares are placed at all aerodromes that are likely to be used.
Can the Minister say in the second instance whether the accident was due to fog or weather conditions?
I am afraid I have given the House all the information that I have available at the moment.
Aviation
"City of Khartoum."
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the inquest on the "City of Khartoum," which was adjourned on 16th January, will be resumed; and what has been the cause of the delay?
Responsibility for the adjournment of the inquest, and its resumption in due course, rests not with the Air Ministry but with the Coroner, who stated that the adjournment was made pending completion of the investigation which is being conducted by the Inspector of Accidents.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he expects to be able to give the House a full report on the "City of Khartoum" disaster?
I regret that I cannot at this stage forecast when the Inspector of Accidents' investigation will be completed.
Atlantic Air Serivices
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Air Ministry has yet received from the Irish Transatlantic Corporation, Limited, the reports prepared by Sir Alan Cobham, and other experts, on the North Atlantic air route; and whether, as this company has acquired terminal sites in Northern Ireland and Nova Scotia, and proposes taking advantage of Treaty No. 38 (1934), between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, for the purchase of aeronautical equipment, it will continue to receive the same Government support which it enjoyed up to 2nd October, 1935, in carrying out this work of vital moment to our Imperial communications?
The company have sent various reports to the Air Ministry, relating to proposed air bases, and their representatives have been given a number of interviews. It is not the case, however, that their schemes have received Government support, or that they were at any time given reason to suppose that they might expect either a subsidy or a mail contract.
Is it not a fact that it was due to the monopoly of Imperial Airways on air mail that altered the view of the Air Ministry as to giving a contract to this company?
There never was any question of a contract.
Is there any definite alternative to this route in the mind of the Minister?
I am afraid that that matter does not come into this question.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the first point at which aeroplanes land on this side being in the United Kingdom?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a deputation is now proceeding from the city of Sydney and the city of St. John to Ottawa to oppose the monopoly given to Imperial Airways; and will he say whether the Dominions nave been consulted in considering the Empire Air Development Scheme?
The Dominions concerned have naturally been consulted.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give particulars of the agreement entered into in 1933 with regard to trans-Atlantic air services between Imperial Airways, Limited, Pan-American Air ways, and the Government of Newfound land; whether the British Government knew and approved of the agreement at the time, or at what date this occurred; and what the present position is?
I am not aware of any agreement of 1931. In 1933 there were, however, negotiations between the parties referred to in the hon. Member's question, but they were not pursued on the basis then contemplated. As regards the present position, it is hoped that recent negotiations will render possible the establishment of air services across the North Atlantic by Imperial Airways and Pan-American Airways in co-operation.
Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage monopolies and to stop competition in the carrying of air mails?
More than a year ago it was decided to entrust this North Atlantic route to Imperial Airways.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in view of the agreement of 1933, other companies have since been encouraged to go on with negotiations to do the work themselves?
There was no agreemen in 1933. Discussions took place with Newfoundland, but nothing came of them.
Airports (London)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has now been made towards the establishment of a central airport for London?
This matter is under review by the committee under Sir Henry Maybury's chairmanship, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 12th February.
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the attitude of the London County Council towards the scheme?
The Corporation of the City of London have a great interest in this scheme, because it may be necessary to have more than one airport.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the great congestion now existing at Croydon, he will ask the committee sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury to expedite their consideration as much as possible?
They are carefully considering the whole question, but I cannot say when their report will be published.
Navigators' Certificates
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how often his Department hold examinations for navigators' certificates; and whether he has received any representations that they should be held more frequently?
The practice since June, 1935, has been to hold about four examinations a year, instead of the former two a year. Before then a few representations were received that the examinations should be more frequent; none have been received since.
In view of the increase of the number of pilots employed, and if my right hon. Friend receives further representations, will he sympathetically consider them?
Certainly, I shall be very glad to do so, if my hon. and gallant Friend will let we know.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what facilities, if any, are provided in this country for training civilian pilots in night flying for air-line operations?
Facilities for training in night flying up to the standard required for a "B" pilot's licence are available at a number of schools and flying clubs in this country. Operating companies have their own arrangements for training their pilots for night flying for air-line operations.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many schools are capable of providing these facilities?
I cannot tell the hon. Member offhand. Perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.
His Majesty's Coronation
asked the Prime Minister whether he can indicate to the House when the arrangements for the Coronation of His Majesty King Edward will be made public?
No, Sir. I cannot as yet say when an announcement will be possible.
Will the Prime Minister consider giving recognition to the unemployed of this country by allowing unemployed contingents to take part in the Coronation procession?
Tithe Rentcharge (Royal Commission's Report)
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any precedent for withholding from publication for three months the Report of a Royal Commission; and, if not, whether he will give instructions for the appropriate department to publish without further delay the Report of the Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge?
Reports of Royal Commissions have been published at varying intervals after they have been made, although I have not found any case within recent years where so long a period as three months has elapsed between completion and publication. In the case of the Report of the Royal Commission on Tithe Rentcharge, the interval between completion and publication, has, I agree, been somewhat prolonged, but this has been with the object of elucidating certain matters arising out of the Report for the convenience of all concerned. The Report will be published by the end of next week.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Report is made public, all these elucidations will be made available to those who receive copies of the Report?
I would suggest that the hon. Member should await the publication of the Report.
As these highly complex problems embodied in the Report apparently have taken the Government several weeks to elucidate, does he not think that we might also have the benefit of them?
My right hon. Friend has been elucidating the problems, and he assures me that all the elucidations will be properly put forward.
Transport
Proposed Bridges (Forth and Tay)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make a statement regarding the proposed Forth road-bridge; what financial arrangements have been made; and what is to be the position of the local authorities?
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the proposed Forth road-bridge?
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the Forth and Tay road-bridges?
I have considered the engineering reports and I think it may be accepted from a technical point of view that the most satisfactory site has now been found for a bridge over the Forth. I have informed the authorities that while I am not convinced, on the information before me, that the project possesses sufficient justification to warrant a grant from the Road Fund towards the estimated expenditure, of £3,250,000, of which the authorities have offered 10 per cent., I am prepared to consider carefully any detailed evidence which they are in a position to submit to me justifying the expenditure on economic and traffic grounds. I am prepared to take a similar course with regard to the proposed bridge over the Tay, the estimated cost of which is £2,100,000.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense disappointment that his answer will cause after all the time that has been taken to investigate this matter? Are we to understand that no endeavour has been made to obtain some evidence of the probable traffic results? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the amount the local authorities will be required to contribute before he can give them a favourable answer?
The answer to the first part of the question is that I am not aware that my answer will cause disappointment. I should have thought that a careful answer would have given every satisfaction to careful people. I have merely asked for evidence that this project is justified on traffic grounds. Hitherto, it has been a question of its technical possibilities. Those have been examined and found to be justified, and it is for those who require a very large grant towards a very large expenditure to justify their case on traffic grounds.
:Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the financial possibilities of making these bridges toll bridges on the principle that even a toll bridge is better than no bridge at all?
Presumably it would be necessary to charge tolls if the local authorities could put up only 10 per cent, of this large expenditure.
Does the right hon. Gentleman wish the local authorities to make additional representations in writing or by deputation?
In the first instance I would suggest they should make them in writing.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to the concluding portion of my question as to what amount the local authorities may expect to have to provide in order to get a favourable reply?
That question would arise out of the other. I first require to be satisfied that the bridge is justified on traffic grounds. It is quite clear that I should want to be satisfied about that. I will then discuss details of the financial arrangements.
If the Minister is ultimately satisfied that these bridges are justified on traffic grounds will they be eligible for the 85 per cent. grant?
Lorries (Attendants)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to remarks made by the South London coroner on an inquest held on a man who was knocked down and killed on Christmas Eve by an eight-wheeled lorry, in which he said it is not reasonable or proper for these huge thirty-three-feet-long lorries to travel long distances for many hours in charge of one man who can only stop for a short interval every five hours; and, in view of the jury's recommendation that action should be taken to compel all large lorries to carry a driver's mate or van boy when making long journeys, will he consider introducing regulations to give effect to this recommendation?
The hours during which drivers may be in charge of lorries are already limited by law. A proposal to require that an attendant should be carried on heavy goods vehicles was rejected by Parliament. I understand that the vehicle involved in the accident was not engaged upon a long journey.
May I ask whether records of the accidents to these heavy vehicles are kept by day and night, in order that we may know to what extent they are causing accidents?
Most ample records are bound to be kept by all lorry drivers.
Speed Limit (Speed-Governor)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the decision of courts abroad in cases where motorists have been convicted for frequently exceeding the speed limit in which the courts have made it a condition, on the renewal of the motorist's licence, that a speed-governor is fitted to their motor cars which will prevent them being driven in future at more than 30 miles an hour; and will he consider introducing amended legislation which will empower the courts of Great Britain to impose similar conditions upon those who have been repeatedly convicted of this offence?
I have been informed of a case in the United States of America where a motorist's licence was renewed on the condition that he would permit a speed-governor to be attached to the engine of his vehicle. I have no knowledge of any general practice in any country abroad in this respect. My advice is that such a device might increase danger by limiting the driver's power of manoeuvre.
Llansaint-Kidwell Road
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the state of the road between Llansaint and Kidwell; if he is aware that the inhabitants of Llansaint are inconvenienced by reason of the state of the road; that no repair of any kind has been done on this road for a long time and that it is now dangerous and impassable to vehicles; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?
I am in communication with the highway authority.
River Ouse, Selby (Proposed Bridge)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the report of the consulting engineers with regard to a proposed new bridge across the River Ouse at Selby was received by the county councils of the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire in September, 1935, but, as yet, no decision appears to have been reached; and will he press the county councils concerned to make a public announcement of their proposals at an early date?
I am informed that the East Riding County Council have accepted the recommendations of the consulting engineers, subject to financial arrangements being satisfactory to the council, and that the matter is to be considered by the West Riding County Council at their next meeting.
Motor Roads, London (Covered Railway Tracks)
asked the Minister of Transport whether any investigation has been made by his Department as to the possibility of covering in the railways in the London area not already underground, with a view to providing additional transport facilities between Central London and the suburbs by means of motor roads superimposed over railway tracks; and, in particular, whether this possibility has been studied in connection with the proposed new arterial road between South Kensington and the Great West Road via Hammersmith and Chiswick?
The answer to both parts of the question is "Yes." The proposal to carry the projected Cromwell Road extension over a section of the District Railway has been examined by the engineers, who report that the technical and practical disadvantages of the scheme are considerable and that the cost would greatly exceed that involved in the construction of a normal road, even including the cost of acquisition of property.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the proposal in the question were carried out, not only would large sums for compensation be avoided but also the loss of rateable value, that double the area for road would be obtained, and that it would be more effective as a road, because there would be no cross-junctions? Is not that worth paying a little more for?
My hon. Friend's assumption is incorrect, the reverse being the case. The expense would be greater, even including the acquisition of land.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many foreign countries have adopted this practice, with very beneficial results?
Yes, Sir, and there is no reason why such a practice should not be adopted here in any appropriate case.
Road Accidents
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet reached a decision respecting the national advertising campaign suggested to him by the Advertising Association with the object of reducing road accidents; and, if so, from what source the cost will be met?
In view of the constant and voluntary help which I have received from all the agencies which affect public opinion, I have not hitherto found it necessary to expend public money in the way suggested. I take this opportunity of acknowledging that the reduction in casualties which we were able to record in 1935, and which I am glad to say is still continuing, is largely attributable to the help so readily given by these agencies.
With a view to the prevention of road accidents, will the Minister draw the attention of the Advertising Association to the report of the British Medical Association that less space should be given to liquor advertisements?
Horse-Drawn Vehicles
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the dangers arising from horse-drawn vehicles, heavily laden, when such vehicles have to start after being stopped by the traffic signals; and will he give consideration to it, as there is liability to accidents both to the horse and the public?
Normally signals are so timed as to allow slow-moving traffic to clear a junction before the signals change. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind I will cause inquiries to be made.
Thank you, I will send the right hon. Gentleman particulars.
Omnibus Services (Muswell Hill-Highgate)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the omnibus services, 43 and 135, operating between Highgate and Muswell Hill, causing inconvenience to passengers compelled to wait in long queues for lengthy periods; and will he make representations to the Transport Board on the matter?
The Board inform me that they propose as from 4th March to increase their omnibus services Nos. 43 and 135 between Muswell Hill and Highgate by six additional journeys during the two peak periods on weekdays.
Beacons
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is contemplated that pedestrian beacons at important points shall be lit at night?
No, Sir. I have advised authorities that if a beacon is not sufficiently conspicuous at night, the street lighting should be improved so that not only the beacon, but the crossing and the pedestrians who may be using it, may be clearly visible to drivers.
Road Workers (Scotland)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will bring pressure to bear on local authorities in the north of Scotland receiving 100 per cent. grants for first-class roads to end the practice of demanding or accepting free labour and to pay road-workers on those roads wages equal to those prevailing in other parts of the country?
No free labour has been or will be employed on the roads which are being reconstructed in the north of Scotland with the aid of 100 per cent. grants from the Road Fund.
Omnibus Fares (Stoke-On-Trent)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Stoke-on-Trent corporation has made an earlier appeal on the subject of omni bus fares in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, 1930, but that it failed be cause the Minister would not make an order under Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, for inspection of the books of the operator on a particular route; and will he exercise his powers under that Act and order production of the books to the Stoke-on-Trent corporation in any future case of appeal, as it is essential to ascertain the whole costs of operation, etc., when dealing with alleged excessive omnibus fares which was recently the subject of discussion between the corporation and the traffic commissioners?
Sir Henry Wynne, who held the inquiry in 1933, was authorised by my predecessor to order the production of such documents relating to the matter in question as he might consider necessary. After hearing arguments, Sir Henry ruled that it was not a case in which he would be justified in making such an Order. I have no power to order the production of documents except at an inquiry.
Travelling Facilities (Enfield)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will represent to the London and North Eastern Railway Company the need for improvements in travelling facilities on the Enfield branch line as soon as they have completed the works they have promised to undertake under their agreement with the Government?
Yes, Sir. The railway company have given an assurance that, as soon as the present works have been completed, the situation in other districts will receive consideration.
Trade and Commerce
New Industries (Special Areas)
asked the President of the Board of Trade the intentions of the Government in attempting to rehabilitate the special area of South Wales and Monmouthshire by encouraging the setting up of new industries and stimulating existing works?
I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the recently published second report of the Commissioner for Special Areas in England and Wales, from which it will be seen that the Commissioner is giving particular attention to the matters to which the hon. Member refers.
Is it the intention of the Government to give wider powers to the Commissioner so that he may perform much more useful service than he is doing?
That is another matter.
Imperial Preference
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the supply of our import requirements from Empire sources wherever possible; and, if so, whether he will be guided by this principle in deciding what modifications in our trade agreements with foreign countries have become necessary?
Yes, Sir. Imperial preference is a cardinal feature of our trade policy, and the possibilities of developing mutual trade with Empire countries are always kept fully in mind.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance that before reopening negotiations for a renewal or extension of trade agreements he will enter into consultation with Dominion Governments with a view of seeing to what extent produce at present imported from foreign countries under these agreements can be imported from Imperial sources?
I do not think that there is any lack of information on that subject. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.
Will the hon. Gentleman enter into active consultation with the governments concerned?
I have said that Imperial preference is a part of the trade policy of the Government, and I think that covers the point the hon. Member is putting.
Coal Exports
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have made application to the French Government to admit an increased quota of British coal into France as part compensation for the loss suffered by Great Britain in the cessation of our export of coal to Italy under the policy of sanctions?
No, Sir.
May I ask whether any European country has taken any steps to help our exports in the same way as we have taken to help the exports of Czechoslovakia?
Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.
Would not the best way of dealing with this question be to press on energetically with effective sanctions?
Does the hon. Gentleman intend to make the application specified in the question?
That clearly is another matter.
Land Drainage
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of catchment boards who have so far failed to carry out new surveys in each area where such survey is necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930?
I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the statutory duty which is laid upon each catchment board to make schemes for the constitution of internal drainage boards or for the reorganisation of existing boards in respect of that part of its catchment area which will derive benefit or avoid danger as a result of drainage operations. Twelve catchment boards out of 48 have so far taken no such action; but these include two boards only recently established; seven boards in whose areas either no reorganisation or only minor adjustments will be required; and three boards who still have the question of reorganisation under consideration.
Sheriff Court, Lanarkshire
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the delay in disposing of cases in the sheriff court of Lanarkshire in Glasgow and, in particular, cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which court is fixing dates for hearing in May next; if he will institute inquiries; and what steps are to be taken to remedy this state of affairs?
I am aware of the delay in the sheriff court at Glasgow, where the volume of work has largely increased, owing mainly to prosecutions under the Road Traffic Acts. Provision has been made for some time for the employment of an extra sheriff substitute for 10 days per month, but it is not clear that this expedient has solved the difficulty. My right hon. Friend has the matter under close review, in consultation with the Lord Advocate and the sheriff of Lanarkshire, with a view to such further action as may be necessary.
British Army
Medals (Records)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any records are kept of medals awarded to members of His Majesty's forces during the years 1914 to 1918?
Yes, Sir.
In order to complete the record would it be possible for the Department to get a report of the medals which have been sold by ex-soldiers because of their poverty-stricken condition?
Barracks (Political Meetings)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether facilities will be granted to all Parliamentary candidates allowing them to address soldiers residing in barracks within the Parliamentary constituency during future general elections?
While every facility is given for members of the forces to record their votes and to attend political meetings, disciplinary considerations render it impossible for such meetings to be held in barracks.
Could it be made possible for Parliamentary candidates to address soldiers in barracks in view of the fact that they are interested in the election in their constituency?
It is open to soldiers in barracks to attend political meetings if they wish. We wish to make the barracks a home for soldiers where they shall be at peace.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many members of the public interpret the action of the Government very differently from the right hon. Gentleman?
Criminals (Deportation)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which countries the United Kingdom has mutual deportation agreements under which criminals recommended for deportation must be received by the countries of which those criminals are subjects?
Deportation does not rest on specific agreements between Governments but on the recognition in inter- national law that a State has power to expel from its territories persons who under the law of that State are aliens and that there is an obligation on every State to admit persons whom it recognises as its nationals.
Are we to understand therefore that all States accept persons who are under sentence of deportation from other countries provided they are sure that those persons are their subjects?
Yes, Sir, but it is open to the State to take the view that such a person is not a subject of that country.
Aliens (Irish Free State)
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are taken to prevent any considerable number of undesirable aliens securing illegal admittance into this country by first journeying to the Irish Free State and afterwards proceeding to this country without passports; and whether his Department possesses any statistics on this subject?
No figures are available of the number of aliens entering from the Irish Free State, but the authorities of the Free State exercise a vigilant control over the admission of aliens from abroad on lines very similar to our own, and this system prevents the ports of the Free State from being used by undesirable aliens for the purpose of entering the United Kingdom.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any control is exercised in this country over immigrants from the Irish Free State?
No, Sir.
Five-Day Week (Government Departments)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the success of the five-day week introduced by Messrs. Boots Pure Drug Company, Limited, the Government will, without delay, accept the principle and introduce it by way of experiment in some Government Departments forthwith?
No, Sir. The Royal Commission on the Civil Service 1929–31, dealt in paragraphs 604 to 606 of their report (Command Paper No. 3909 of 1931) with a proposal submitted to them by the staff side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council for the introduction of a five-day week. The finding of the Commission was that the evidence submitted as to outside practice did not justify the introduction of any general measure of closing of Government offices on one week-day and that further the proposal was impracticable in a large number of cases. This, among other findings of the Royal Commission, has since been discussed through the appropriate Whitley machinery but the official side have maintained the view that there is no ground for a revision of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
Were not these findings arrived at before the recent experiment made by Messrs. Boots; and could they not be reviewed in the light of that experiment?
I would point out that on the administrative side it is a very different matter, and as an illustration of the difficulties involved, I may also point out that my hon. and gallant Friend, by putting down this question on a Friday to be answered on a Monday, involved work being done in the Treasury on Saturday.
Are we to understand that the Government drugs are not pure?
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing a five-day week for all workers in Britain in order to give an opportunity to those who are unemployed to become employed?
And will he also be good enough to apply the rule to political speeches, that they shall not exceed five days a week?
Would there be any difficulty in putting a five-day week into operation in the productive departments, in the arsenals and dockyards?
There may be cases where it would be possible, and as an illustration I understand that in the Government Printing Department at Harrow, which is under the Stationery Office, there is a five-day week for the majority of the operatives, but I cannot accept the general principle as applicable to the Civil Service.
Is the trend of opinion not in favour of it?
Unemployment
Benefit (Regulations)
asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to have ready for submission to the House the new regulations affecting the unemployed in receipt of transitional relief?
I cannot add to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Salford, South (Mr. Stourton) on 4th February.
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in any case, give the House plenty of time between the publication of these regulations and the moment when we shall be called upon to vote upon them?
Certainly.
Has the Unemployment Assistance Board made any draft regulations or made any suggestions to the Department yet?
There have been a number of suggestions, but my answer stated that the whole question is at present under examination.
We could not hear the answer.
Aliens
asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has any statistics showing the number of aliens now on the unemployment register; and the number of aliens now in receipt of unemployment benefit?
I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible for his Department to obtain these statistics in future without incurring any further expenditure of public money?
I should have to look into that matter.
Special Areas (Housing Schemes)
asked the Minister of Labour whether local authorities building houses under the Housing Acts will be granted, in addition to the annual amounts of appropriate contribution from the Exchequer, grants from the special areas fund, as proposed to be given to the North Eastern Housing Association, Limited, and thus relieve the prevailing high rates of any additional burden?
The Commissioner for the Special Areas has no power to offer a general subsidy of the kind suggested; but to the extent to which, local authorities in areas covered by the public utilities society referred to avail themselves of its services they will, in fact, be relieved of the burden of rates which would otherwise fall on them in respect of housing schemes for slum clearance and abating overcrowding.
Member Sworn
Another Member took and subscribed the Oath.
Ballot for Notices of Motions
Road Accidents (Prevention)
I beg to give notice that on 4th March I shall call attention to the prevention of road accidents, and move a Resolution.
Oil Supply
I beg to give notice that on 4th March I shall call attention to the oil supply of the Nation, and move a Resolution.
Drift of Industry from Scotland
I beg to give notice that on 4th March I shall call attention to the drift of industry from Scotland to the South, and move a Resolution.
Incidence of Rating (Special Areas)
I beg to give notice that on 4th March I shall call attention to the incidence of rating, with particular reference to special areas, and move a Resolution.
Navy Estimates, 1936
Estimates presented—for the Navy for the financial year 1936 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Army Estimates, 1936
Estimates presented—of Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army for the financial year 1936 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments (Supplementary Estimate, 1935)
Estimate presented—of the further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Juvenile Training and Employment
3.52 p.m.
I beg to move,
Under this heading I feel that we should have in view all kinds of training which may in some way influence a prospective employer. There are, according to a Board of Education report dated July, 1935, 31 trade schools, and 27 of these trade schools are in or near London; and, in the wording of the same report: Great War some 30,000 children between the ages of 12 and 14 were permitted to divide their working days between the factory and the school. Boys and girls in Lancashire were released from the factory in order to go to school in the afternon, and this, of course, was at a time when general schooling and general education were denied to a great many. The system had its defenders, because before the War and during the War itself it became a habit. The wages earned by the children were, of course, acceptable to the parents, and the low level of wages was acceptable to the employers of child labour, but, apart from this, I feel that it is difficult to defend such a system. I personally could not possibly advise it.
The system which I find more desirable is one by which technical and general education is given jointly at the school to meet the requirements of changing world conditions. This cannot be considered, I would submit, as child labour, because the children are not working in a factory. They are working at school, and they are all the time fitting themselves for the life which is to be theirs in the future. They are not working for wages, and I think that nobody could claim that any hardship is involved. It is surprising to me to know that more use has not been made of recent scientific developments. I believe I am right in saying that in Italy and in Germany great use is made of the radio. Perhaps the radio in those countries is used for the purpose of political propaganda, which, I agree, is invidious, but if the example of Germany and Italy were followed in this country, in so far as technical and educational instruction is concerned, I believe that much advantage might follow.
Although there are numerous instructional films at the present time, I feel that the film industry, which is full of great possibilities, has not been exploited to its full extent by the State. It has not been applied in any extensive manner as I feel that it could be applied, in a most enjoyable and acceptable manner, in instructing pupils in some trade, craft or profession. I believe that those text-books which we all look back upon as stodgy could be supplemented by this new form of educational instruction. Hon. Members may say that it might be difficult to trace any actual training benefit to the display of these educational films, but I would submit, and I believe it to be a fact, that it would in no small measure help psychologically towards creating a general appreciation of and a greater interest in the working of modern industry. It is not to be supposed that all school teachers are expert in the instruction of any particular art, craft or trade. They are not expert in this sense. They are there to instruct the young in general education, and, therefore, I feel the necessity for supplementing these school teachers with experienced and expert itinerant lecturers. The presence of these lecturers will, of course, necessitate a modification of the school curriculum to embrace the subjects to which these lectures are devoted.
I believe that by the development of technical education upon the lines I have suggested, that is to say during the last three or four years at school, the decay of apprenticeship, which I deplore, might be supplanted and replaced by this new system, and a large number of school children who find themselves at the mercy of a hard and relentless industrial world might be better equipped to fit themselves as honest and true citizens. To work well one must he fit. I feel the necessity for developing in our schools a system of physical training. A standard syllabus approved by the Ministry of Health or Ministry of Education and administered by qualified instructors would help to produce the bodily fitness which is so desirable. Unqualified instructors, as we know, may do an immense amount of damage. They may strain the limbs and may provide unsuitable exercises for the children, and these unsuitable exercises may have a very detrimental effect on the health of the children. That is why I would press for the provision of qualified instructors. I would like to read a small paragraph from a Circular, dated 13th January, 1936, and issued by the Board of Education. It reads: I submit that that is an indictment of the system of physical education in our schools at the present time. It is up to the Government now to impress upon the local education authorities the need for expanding physical training.
I now come to a point which I know will not be popular with some. I do not myself consider it to be exactly desirable, but I do feel that as other countries have set an example we should not be backward in providing ourselves against what may be a case of emergency. This point is the reason for a supplementary means of attaining the high degree of physical fitness which I am sure hon. Members think to be desirable. I believe we have to establish in our secondary schools the principle of cadet corps. It may be said by the cynics that I am advocating German or Italian Fascist ideas.
Or Russian.
Or Russian. I do not mind what hon. Members say in that respect. But it is not the case. I believe that a taste of military discipline is good for young persons. Large sums of money, we hope, are to be spent upon the defences of this country. What, I ask, is the use of spending large sums of money on the defences of this country if the personnel is not available? The Services are crying out for recruits. They are almost begging for recruits and there are no recruits available, no young men who have been trained to fill positions in the Navy, Army or Air Force. In Germany and in Italy, and perhaps my Noble Friend will say in Russia, young men are being trained in case of emergency, and women too. I feel that the youth of this country should be trained also. I repeat that I do not think it is altogether desirable to have this training, but I feel also that only in this way can we safeguard ourselves against the training which is provided in other countries; only in this way can an A1 nation be established. In 1917 Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, who was then the Minister of Education, made the following statement in this House: He was asked whether he meant military camps, and his reply was, "No, Sir, school camps." Various institutions have followed Mr. Fisher's advice, but I find from my investigations that local authorities have always altogether neglected that advice. I think it is time for the Government to make a further appeal to the local authorities to provide these holiday camps, these school camps for the youth of this country. The school camps will undoubtedly have an effect in supplementing the physical efficiency which we all desire, and they will at the same time teach that state of discipline which is so essential at the present time. There are other obvious advantages which I need not now enumerate.
Now I turn to voluntary exercises in leisure hours. I do ask, must the State rely on public charity for the provision of school playing-fields? Too much does the young man in this country go to watch the Chelsea Football Club being defeated on Saturday afternoons. If it is not the Chelsea Club it is some other club. Would it not be much better if he exercised his own body and provided himself with fitness with which to tackle the daily routine of industrial life? It is solely because the State does not realise that this obligation rests on it that means of recreation is not provided. The time to act is now. Building is going on to such an extent that all the available open spaces round our great cities will be occupied unless the Government take steps to remedy this great defect. I beg the Government to take, action in this matter.
With a view to the ultimate employment of juveniles training of character is as essential as technical training. A love of country and a sense of loyalty must be encouraged. I believe that loyalty is a useful asset in every walk of life. The present-day employer demands it and I think he has every right to demand it. At the same time I say that it should be reciprocated to the employé. Then there are the fundamental principles of Christianity, which help us to appreciate our moral obligations. It is gratifying to know that a greater degree of religious training is being given in the State-supported schools at the present time. None the less I feel that it is very invidious to force upon juveniles of any particular denomination beliefs which are contrary to their religion.
In conclusion, I say again that I do not desire general education to suffer unduly at the expense of an expansion of technical training. Physical and moral training are equally important. In England to-day there is a growing sense and demand among industrial workers to be considered primarily as citizens, and as citizens fit subjects for any form of education from which they can profit. Those in our industrial army do not want education merely to raise their wages; at least I do not believe so. I believe that they want education in order to make a step forward, a step upwards on the ladder. The encouragement of general education at the same time as technical education is vital. The worker knows that it will help him to occupy the leisure hours of his life.
The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will perhaps suggest a five days' working week, for I know that she supports that system. If we are to have a five days' working week the individual will want to know how to make use of his leisure hours, and that should be one of the great uses of present-day education. This ability to occupy leisure hours will help men to overcome the turmoil and the strife of work and life in the great industrial cities. That is why I cannot agree with those who would exclude general education for the sake of technical education only. General education teaches us the way to learn, the way to absorb knowledge, and it teaches us. also how to occupy our leisure hours, whereas technical education teaches us to earn a living, to clothe and feed ourselves and to be decent citizens and to provide the necessities of life. In modern education I submit that both of these general types are necessary.
4.14 p.m.
I beg to second the Motion.
A subject like this gives one very wide scope, and it makes us elders feel our responsibility. We are responsible for the training of the youth, and youth in course of time is going to take our place. We must ask ourselves whether we are seeing that everything is done to fit youth to take responsibility in future.
There will be no difficulty in filling your place.
It may be difficult to fill the hon. Member's place. This responsibility is one which I am sure all of us feel very keenly. For a long time now I have had in mind that the whole educational system of this country requires a general overhaul. There is far too much of what I would term mass education. There is not specialisation, and this mass education is developing youths who are coming into industry with an outlook which is quite inconsistent with the conditions as we find them to-day. We must be fair and give every opportunity to youth so that it is fitted when it comes into industry. I would like to see the time of the school taken up with more physical training. A number of voluntary organisations are working to give physical training to children such as camps, swimming, boys' and girls' clubs, and Boy Scouts, but I feel the subject is so important that it should not rest entirely with voluntary effort. So important do I believe it to be, that I think it should be considered from the national standpoint and should form part of the educational and training facilities of youth. After they have gone through their normal educational and physical training up to, say, 15 years of age—and I would go further than the Bill which is now before the House—I would transfer those who had shown special ability into proper technical training centres, so that we could get the highest degree of efficiency in our young manhood and womanhood.
I am, unfortunately, interested in three industries which have great difficulty in getting skilled labour. While there is that difficulty the Ministry of Labour returns of unemployment record thousands of people in those industries. It is for that reason that I say we should give greater attention to technical training. Hon. Members opposite may refer to the fact that machinery is killing apprenticeship as we understood it in the past, and is not giving the opportunities that apprenticeship did. Let us, however, have as much machinery as we can get to do the work of man, instead of discouraging, as many on the other side do, the introduction of machinery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who does?"] My opponents. We should have machinery to the utmost limit so that we can remove the toil from manual labour. That is a condition which is developing, though not so rapidly, perhaps, as some of us would like, but it is inevitable that it will continue to develop. In that event, we have to consider that, if the machine is to do the greater part of our work, there will be greater leisure time. It is, therefore, essential to give our youths physical training and training in sports and outdoor games so that, when they have leisure time, they will be more fitted to occupy that time in a healthy manner.
A large amount of the unemployment to-day is due to the fact, which I see in my own constituency, that so many of the youths who are leaving school go straight into blind alleys. It is criminal of us elders to allow such conditions to continue. Yet it goes on year after year, and it accounts for the huge mass of unemployed which has no technical training at its finger ends, while in certain industries there is no skilled labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which industries?"] Machine tools, aircraft and building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Although there are 170,000 unemployed in the building industry, you may go into some cities and find great difficulty in getting plasterers and bricklayers. One has to speak from experience in these matters. I am not speaking from books, like many Members on the opposite side. The conditions of which I have been speaking have largely been brought about by the political training given by the party opposite. I say without hesitation that Socialism is the most degrading political faith in the country, and if the teaching of Socialism were substituted by the teaching of youths how to live and how to become good citizens, a great deal of our troubles to-day would not exist.
4.22 p.m.
We have listened to two very interesting speeches. This Motion is capable of being one of those motions which are well worthy of discussion by the House, and which may prove of the utmost value. I, therefore, regret that the speeches to which we have listened have not been so helpful as they might have been. They have been diffuse and have contained no constructive arguments, or useful propositions. It is deplorable that the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) should use a Motion of this kind to make a purely political attack on Members on this side. We have every reason to want to give to the youth and the children the best possible opportunities. We on this side have personal experience of the wants and requirements of children attending school, and we represent parents who are looking forward to their children making a success in life. Consequently, we have every reason to wish to support any effort to improve the conditions of the young people.
The Mover of the Motion spoke about technical education, and said he was strongly in favour of more technical education. As I have had for nearly 40 years practical experience of technical education and have preached the necessity for it up and down the country, would the hon. Gentleman listen while I put to him the tremendous difficulties in the way of achieving anything which is calculated to help the children? It must be remembered that children going to the elementary schools are leaving at the age of 14. During their school life there is little or no opportunity in the schools for technical education. The schools are not equipped for it. Here and there a small amount of training is given in a limited number of occupations, but, practically speaking, no technical education is given under the age of 14.
It is the purpose of this Motion to promote more technical training in the schools before the pupils leave school, but may I say that neither technical training nor general education are of the slightest use with no intelligence?
We will not argue about intelligence; it would be a pity. I was saying that there is little or no opportunity while children up to 14 are attending school for technical education. If there is to be that general education which is so necessary, I cannot see how the time is to be found within school hours for that kind of education. At 14 the child leaves school. He is almost immediately absorbed into some industry, to attend a machine, or to run errands, or to work in some other blind-alley occupation. The parents who have agreed to the child going to work as soon as he can, because of sheer economic circumstances, are anxious that he shall find some way out of the blind-alley. The child is encouraged to go to a technical school in the evenings. He is told that if he attends the technical school he will equip himself in some way for the battle of life. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion display an alarming ignorance of what goes on when the child leaves school. Do they know that in hundreds of thousands of cases the children are occupied 11 or 12 hours a day in going to work, in working and coming home? Do they know that when a child does attend evening or technical classes he has to be in a fit state to absorb the education given to him? Does the hon. Member for Southampton realise, when he speaks of unskilled labour and the difficulty of finding skilled labour, that the employers are responsible more than anybody else for the greatly increasing number of unskilled people?
What responsibility do the trade unions have?
They try to make their members skilled workers.
Have they not restricted their membership since the War?
Nothing of the sort. No one should know better than the hon. Member that during the years of the depression the employers deliberately smashed the apprenticeship system in hundreds of cases. They would not carry apprentices because there was no work for them to do, and to-day, when they get a spate of good trade, they complain about the shortage of skilled labour. I have advocated technical education in my own trade and industry. We have done a great deal to get local authorities to set up special schools for the young folk and to encourage them by giving prizes. My own organisation spends hundreds of pounds in doing what it can to encourage technical education. We then find that, owing to certain other circumstances, the reward for all this is very often 60 and 70 hours a week for wages which in many cases are an absolute disgrace to the employers who pay them. Of what assistance is technical education then? After all, technical education, if it consists in anything at all, has as its object the equipping of the boy or girl with technical knowledge of their calling or occupation which will make them really skilled workpeople.
Does the hon. Member think it better that unemployed people should be unskilled or skilled?
If a man is unemployed it makes no difference to him whether he is skilled or unskilled. If the hon. Member is going to argue that unskilled labour is not necessary to industry, I will say that it is necessary.
A percentage is necessary.
A great percentage. The hon. Member said that the machine ought to be a blessing to mankind and ought to be used for the good of mankind. We on these benches entirely agree; but the very existence of the machine, its growth and its greater efficiency, tend more and more to cause a greater percentage of unskilled labour to be required. It is comparatively easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about technical education, but I notice that the Motion says: which is calculated to raise very considerable difficulties. The hon. Member must realise that it is all very well to say that physical training will make stronger men and women—that is true only so long as there is something inside the child's body, so long as the children live in decent homes, are well-fed and well-clothed and have good shoes on their feet; but no amount of physical training will help children who are half-starved during their childhood to become better men and women. Therefore, even on that point, I am afraid that hon. Members who have spoken do not quite realise the things that matter.
Then I heard the hon. Member who moved the Motion suggest that the children are to be given technical and physical training so that they may become the hewers of wood and drawers of water, the loyal servants of the governing classes—in fact they are to be slaves. That is what the argument amounts to. The hon. Member had in mind the training of a class of people who would not ask questions and would not think for themselves. I would sooner have children go without that sort of training; I would rather see them grow up wild than be submitted to a discipline which will create men and women who have no soul of their own and no body of their own. I am very much afraid that the hon. Member had in mind the class of boys and girls who are attending elementary schools and who must be drilled and taught to be respectful to their betters, and so on. I do not want to see a British nation of that sort. I want to see children brought up to be sturdy and independent, proud of their manhood and womanhood, people who are not afraid to look the world and their employers in the face, and who have all those traditional characteristics which have made us what we are.
What are we?
It is all very well to talk about loyalty, but in the first place a man ought to be loyal to himself and to his family, and then to his nation. His loyalty should be directed towards developing the best that is in him and to handing on to those who follow him something better than he is himself. That is a decent sort of loyalty, but the loyalty which the Mover of the Motion had in mind is the loyalty which causes a man to touch his hat and believe that of necessity the system under which we live must continue. I suggest that technical and physical training which has that end in view is not desirable in the interests of the youth of this nation.
We on these benches recognise the tremendous problem facing the child life of this country, a problem which becomes more difficult each year. We are sending our young people on to the labour market at 14 years of age, and at the age of 19 or 20 they are too old and are thrown on to the streets. Does my hon. Friend propose that children should be trained for that sort of thing? We on these benches want to see physical training given and we want to see playing fields provided. In this great City of London one sees games being played in all the open spaces and parks, and there are many more children who wish that they had an opportunity to play games. Our people are not deteriorating. There seems to be a feeling on the other side of the House that the present generation is deteriorating in some measure; but I say that if the boys and girls of to-day are given opportunities they will become better men and women than are their parents.
In conclusion, I protest most strongly against the underlying ideas of the Mover of this Motion that all that is required is discipline, the kind of physical training and education which will not enable boys and girls to give their best when they reach manhood and womanhood, but which will reduce them to the position of docile serfs, unable to speak for themselves. If that were to happen, it would be a sad thing for this country. One cannot complain about the terms of this Motion as it is drafted; the thing which matters is the underlying ideas of the Mover and Seconder, and against those ideas I wish to protest.
4.42 p.m.
I always enter a debate on education with a certain amount of trepidation, because I have spent most of my life either in factories or in an administrative educational capacity. I would like, however, to offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. Taylor) on having drawn the attention of the House to the question of technical education and physical training. I do not know whether I ought not to say that since I have been in the House I have become less and less sure of my ground and opinions on educational matters. Until I came into the House I never knew how many very real experts on education there were in the country. I almost feel like that contemporary critic of Macaulay who said that he wished he could be as sure on any one thing as Macaulay was cocksure on everything.
I would like to try to bring this Debate on to a calmer level. I quite agree that we should call attention to these two important points, but if I had been near my hon. Friend when he moved the Motion, I think I would have pulled his coat-tails when he spoke about this being subversive to industry, because I knew perfectly well that he was putting a bombshell into the hands of my hon. Friends opposite, who would immediately say, "There you are, you want to get slave labour and cannon fodder at the same time." I would like to say that when I was in charge of a school my one aim was to develop the intelligence and the personality of the child. Whatever degree of technical education or physical perfection may be acquired, they cannot supplant the development of the intelligence and personality of the child.
I would like to deal with two points that have been mentioned. In the first place, with regard to technical education, I am strongly in favour of all children being given some technical education, at least in the last years of their education in a senior school. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield)—I hope he will pardon my drawing his attention to this point—who said that up to the age of 14 children get no technical education. If he will go into some of our modern senior schools, he will find that in many of them there are well equipped laboratories for the boys and domestic science rooms for the girls, and so on. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the modern schools."] I will admit that 50 per cent. of the children over 11 cannot get into schools of that type and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend. It may well be that the new Education Bill, when it passes through this House, will encourage local authorities to grant money for the purpose of seeing that this lack of technical training in so many of our schools is remedied. Let us hope so. With years of experience at the back of me I say that in none of those senior schools are we attempting to train children for industry. I do not think we shall ever do that. I have never yet heard any great industrialists say that they want the child trained for industry. What they want is the child whose intelligence has been trained to the highest degree possible; they do not want him trained in any specific industry, because they can look after that themselves.
I was struck by the words in the Motion, "the changing needs of industry." If I can visualise the change going on in the industrial world it seems to me that a, large number of children when they leave school are going to become machine-minders, and that if we are to find an outlet for the creative ability of these children it must be done in the last years at the senior school or in some technical school at night. As far as I can see—perhaps somebody will correct me if I am wrong—modern industry no longer allows the creative ability of the child to be developed when the child leaves schools and takes up what I call machine-minding. As to the higher types of industry I am sure the Board of Education is on the right line. We have been promised an expenditure of some £12,000,000 for the furthering of technical education. That is a promise which I hope will be fulfilled, and I am sure it is welcomed on all sides of the House.
Let me turn to physical education. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. Taylor) referred to Circular 1445. I think that Circular drew general approbation, both inside this House and outside, though I feel that there are danger points in it. I am not too easy about the glib talk about the army of physical training organisers. I am not sure what it means, but, generally speaking, the Circular is a step in the right direction. Still, I would impress upon the Minister and the Board of Education inspectors this one point: Physical education is something much more than "physical jerks." To put it in a nutshell, physical training without medical supervision and advice may be very harmful. Those who have read the report by Mr. Malcolm Stewart, Commissioner for the Special Areas, will recall that he refers to children suffering from malnutrition and to children with a tendency to tuberculosis. In such cases a set form of physical exercises would be the worse possible thing for the child. I can well imagine that in some of our distressed areas a stretcher on which a child might lie in the sun in the afternoon would be much more beneficial than any amount of physical jerks on the horizontal bar or "the donkey." An hon. Member remarks that the children want some beefsteak as well, and perhaps they do.
I would sound this warning. Up and down the country there has been a great outcry, and a very proper outcry, in favour of greater opportunities for physical training. With that demand I am in. the greatest sympathy, but I do not think we ought to go mad about it. Some of the greatest men in history have not been physically developed to any great extent, and I do not suppose any course of physical exercises would have made Lord Nelson a better sailor or Alexander Pope a better poet. While I agree with my hon. Friend's action in bringing forward this Motion, I do not support it for quite the same reasons as he put forward, but we may congratulate ourselves that this is the second Wednesday in succession on which the House has given attention to questions of this sort. I finish by saying this: Do not let it be said of us that we are training a nation of mechanical robots finely developed from the neck downwards. School exists for something far higher and greater than that. What we must concentrate on is the development of the intelligence and the personality of the child.
4.52 p.m.
As I listened to the hon. Member who introduced this Motion I could not help remembering that he was Member for Eastbourne. I think there are not many places, certainly not many industrial areas, which would send representatives here to make quite that kind of speech, though I appreciate that he was quite sincere and that there may be others along the South Coast of England who hold the same views. He said—he said it with some difference, but did undoubtedly say it—that he thought it would be desirable to introduce into schools some form of military conscription.
Does the hon. Member consider the Boy Scouts or the Church Lads Brigade or the Boys Brigade a form of military conscription?
I most certainly am of opinion that Boy Scouts have nothing whatever to do with military conscription.
My reference to cadet corps, the hon. Member would no doubt admit, would be similar to Boy Scouts and Church Lads Brigades?
No; we all understand what cadet corps are. They are part of the military organisation of this country, and it is no good trying to make out that they are just the same as the purely civilian movement, the Boy Scouts. In the weeks that are to come we shall have the full proposals of the Government for the defence of this country, and I believe and hope that they will not include anything in the nature of compulsory military service in schools, because that would be entirely contrary to our national tradition and to the needs of the situation. I believe it is an entire fallacy to say that we should get the best physical training by having military training in schools. It is the accepted view of educationists that we get far better results on the physical side through organised games, the work of the Boy Scouts and training of that kind, and it would be far better to concentrate on that type of training than on the other, which is highly controversial, to say the very least. As has been pointed out, if we are to go in for physical training we must be careful to see that the children are in a fit condition to take part in it. I know that in certain places teachers are fearful that, owing to the lack of proper feeding, too great a strain may be placed on the children by physical exercises, and it will be necessary to continue and to develop strongly the system of providing milk in schools.
It seems to me that the broad issue in this Debate is the old question between a vocational and a liberal education. We ought not to look upon education as a means of training young people to take their places as cogs in the industrial wheel, to be good working boys and good workmen and to do what their employers want. That is a wrong point of view. We want children to become, first and foremost, good citizens, capable of tackling any job that comes to them in life, whether it be that of Minister of Education or that of an unskilled labourer—whatever it be to make the best possible success of it. Those who can afford to give their children the longest course of education never dream of introducing the technical or vocational side until the last possible moment. Those who stay at public schools up to 18 or 19 years of age get a liberal education right up to the end, and even in the universities, up to the age of 21 or 22, in a large number of cases the education received is a liberal education and not on the vocational or technical side. I agree that in harmony with this idea we may still have a technical bias in the training given in schools; that is right and that is inevitable; but the main object should always he to develop personality and character.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. Taylor) made some reference to the use of wireless in schools. I think he overlooked the fact that it is used on a very large scale at the present time, but we ought to bear in mind that though it may provide a suitable change from time to time, it can never be a substitute for the work of the teacher. The teacher needs to be present to interpret what is coming over the wireless, and you will always require the personality and the example of the teacher himself. The wireless is only an accessory in wise education. We all realise now that the advantageous position in which this country stood 100 years ago, when we got into the markets of the world ahead of the others and had no very serious competition, has gone for good, and that we can only maintain our position in the world by taking every opportunity to train and educate our people. I do not believe that that can be done by the "cat and mouse" Measures which the Government are introducing at the present time. I know that I must not refer to proceedings in another place, but I hope the particular Measure I have in mind will come out in such a form as to make it impossible to refer to it in any way in terms such as I have used. I hope that the policy of the Government will be to keep our education up to the highest age that they think the country will stand in its present state of mind, and that that education will be of a broad and liberal kind, while not forgetting its vocational side.
Liberal of course in the wider sense.
The right hon. Gentleman recognises that the outlook and views of my hon. Friends and myself on these benches has become part of the English language. It is not only in respect of education that our views are widely held and pretty generally accepted. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to make the greatest possible success of his position, and I trust that he will endeavour to maintain education, in the true liberal sense, up to the highest possible age that he feels the country will stand.
5.2 p.m.
I may claim an exceptional measure of the indulgence which this House generally gives on such occasions, because of the circumstances in which I have been personally associated with juvenile training. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) said he spoke from experience and not from book learning. I have been able to acquire very little book learning, but I have had long experience which teaches me to take perhaps a different view on questions of juvenile training from that which is held by some hon. Members opposite. I had a spare time wage-earning occupation at eight years of age from six o'clock in the morning till eight, and from six o'clock in the evening till eight, for seven days a week and for 28 hours in the week, for the remuneration of 1s. That was part of my juvenile training. At 10 years of age I had a part-time occupation on the land. If anyone could fully appreciate the advantages of working as a half-timer on the land, in the sense in which hon. Gentlemen dealt with it during some of our recent discussions, it was myself.
I might find it almost impossible to control my feelings were I to venture fully to describe my experiences. At 12 years of age I was a full-time wage earner, and I have remained so for practically the remainder of my life. I mention this not because I want to strike a personal note, but in order to indicate that I know something of the possibilities of juvenile training and that I have been associated with such education as one might acquire in an elementary school. That is the purport of this Motion. On this side of the House, we are as much in favour as are hon. Members opposite of providing the training that may be necessary, at suitable times and in suitable circumstances, for the fulfilment of the obligations of the life of an adult citizen, but we take a slightly different view as to-the object of all training.
It is a very fortunate circumstance—or it appears to be so to a newcomer to this House—that so much of our time has been devoted to questions related to the welfare of our young. Such attention is very much overdue. I notice, however, that through all our discussion of this question there has run one vitiating thought. Some hon. Members seem to conceive that education and juvenile training should have for their object the fitting of people for the life of business. I conceive juvenile education and training to have for their proper object the training of the individual for the business of life. There is all the distinction in the world between regarding life as having labour for its object, and regarding life as requiring from us a fair and necessary share of labour as a duty, in order that we may eventually participate in the rights of life and enjoy its benefits.
We are not opposed to technical education, but I am emphatically opposed to the object which such technical training; seems to have in the minds of those who support this Motion. It has been indicated by themselves—there is no need to drag it out of them—that first and foremost the object of technical training and juvenile schools should be to fit boys for eventual work in the industrial field. I am not suggesting that boys should be called upon to enter industry unfitted by any measure of training for the work that they may have to perform in order to earn their daily bread. I speak as a member of a large educational authority with some experience when I say that if you were to consult those who are responsible for the education of our children in the primary and senior schools, they would inform you that the school curriculum is already so extensive and the syllabus already so much overloaded that to ask for the introduction of technical training for industry would be asking for the impossible. It would be asking them to achieve not only the impossible but the undesirable.
There may be a shortage of skilled labour in some trades, but the party on these benches is not responsible for that. The system defended by hon. Members on the opposite benches is responsible. My first full-time occupation, was in brass turning, a trade to which my parents, if I had not been something of a stupid mule, would have apprenticed me. I had an elder brother who served his time in that trade, as one of 200 apprentices in a shop where there were no more than four adult journeymen. I calculated my eventual chances, when I should have served my time, after starting at a wage of 3s. 6d. per week and rising by 1s. per year until I was 21, as one of those 200, as against the four journeymen in the shop, and I decided that I would not be apprenticed to brass-turning. My parents next sent me into a similar local industry, that of stove grate fitting, in which, if they had had their way, I would again have been apprenticed. The same conditions prevailed there: 150 to 180 juvenile apprentices in the shop to three, or at most four, journeymen who had served their time and were just sufficient to supervise the juvenile labour which, by the time it reached its upper teens and its twenties, was doing the work as efficiently as any journeymen could do.
That is a system of exploiting juvenile labour to the extreme, and in this Motion hon. Members are asking that that labour should be supplied to them already partially prepared. It is a system which determines those who have foresight and common sense not to become associated with apprenticeship to such trades, because of the limited opportunities there are of finding remunerative opportunities of employment after the apprenticeship period is passed and the juveniles have become adults. I do not see any remedy for that state of affairs by introducing technical training into the elementary schools.
I do not resent that hon. Members should have had educational advantages, in so far as they have enjoyed them, but I deeply envy them. It is all very well for them to talk about training, in juvenile schools, the children of the class to which I belong, in order to fit them subsequently for industry, but not a word has been said about introducing technical training into the public schools, in which some of those hon. Members have graduated. It is not boys of that class which it is proposed to train from the earliest, I might say a tender, age, for subsequent exploitation in industry. Oh, no; it is the boys of the working class who are to have technical training in order to become, in Shelley's lines:
Hon. Members who support the Motion look at the matter from the wrong point of view and begin at the wrong end of the problem. I do not know that the human animal differs very much from any other animal in the respect that every healthy animal to which we are related, if it be a healthy animal, will find means for its own exercise sufficient to maintain its body in a state of health and fitness, which it does not require for purposes of work, except such work as may be strictly necessary to provide itself with its own livelihood. The human being is not supposed to be an animal requiring this first basis of physical health and fitness. Do we on these benches need to be reminded that it is essential that we should be fit in order to be able to work? I have served for a number of years in one of the heaviest trades of the country, for 12 hours per shift, during which practically every garment had to be doffed before one could continue that employ- ment. I do not need to be taught how necessary it is that we should be physically fit in order to prepare for work.
I know that the first essential of physical fitness is proper nourishment of the body and a sufficiency of the right kind of food. Let hon. Members turn their attention to amplifying measures whereby parents may provide for their children a sufficient quantity of the right kind of food. They may reproach themselves for having neglected to provide parents in earlier days with knowledge to teach them not only what kind of food to use but how to prepare it. It is not the fault of parents if they have not the means to furnish their children with a sufficient amount of the right kind of food, or to clothe them properly, but if the elementary needs which are indispensable for physical health be satisfied, the young children will show how to keep themselves fit, not by technical training or by such measures as have been mentioned by the Mover of the Motion, but by indulgence in that healthy play in which children do not need a great deal of instruction.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion indicated another direction in which he wanted technical education to be given. He associated it with the formation of cadet corps in schools, although he tried to wriggle out of the implications of the use of that expression when he was challenged with it. I happen to have made a note, when he spoke, of the very words he used, and they were:
I said "young persons."
Yes, but the young persons are children in attendance at the elementary schools. The Motion expressly uses the word "juvenile," so obviously it refers to children who at present, and at least until the year 1939, are of the age of 14. We are asked to believe that children of the age of 14 would be all the better for "a taste of military discipline"—in other words, they are to be taught to labour for their masters, and eventually to fight, and if need be to die, for their rulers.
I hope the House will not misunderstand us. We on this side do not yield to hon. Members opposite in regard to questions of love of our country and loyalty to the best of its institutions, but when that loyalty and patriotism, which we are as keen to cultivate in their proper sense as hon. Members opposite, are sought to be exploited for purely personal individual ends in industry and on the field of battle, we venture to demur, and to claim the right to say in what our children shall be instructed, what ideals shall be set before them, and for what purposes their juvenile training shall be given. I submit that there is no need to take the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to fulfil the requirements of future occupation in industry and future enjoyment of life in its fullest sense. We can still give our young people the chance to learn as much as possible in ways that will result not only in the development of their bodies along the lines of physical health, but also in giving their minds the opportunity for the fullest possible expression. The life of business is a secondary matter; the business of life is the all-important matter to which all training should be directed.
5.18 p.m.
I am glad that I can thoroughly agree with the last sentence of a very moving maiden speech, and I must congratulate the hon. Member on the way in which he has put his case. When one hears what his experience was, one cannot blame him for being bitter. I myself feel that I should be desperately bitter if I had started work at eight years of age, and, much as I regret the bitterness, I do understand it. I think we are all agreed on the object set out in the Motion. The desire of the Mover is exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr Marklew). The difficulty is that the bitterness which people have experienced in their youth seems to stick to them throughout life, and that is why an hon. Member on this side has said that the teaching of Socialism was really a national evil. I think that what he meant was that the bitterness which resulted was a national evil, and I am sure the hon. Member for Coin Valley will agree with me that nothing is more deplorable and tragic than that people should be embittered.
When a young Member of the House moves a Motion like this, surely hon. Members opposite are taking an embittered view if they see a sinister motive behind it—if they suggest that all he is thinking of is getting child workers ready, in the first place for industry, and then for war to defend the class to which he belongs. That is all nonsense. Hon. Members know well enough, as I know, that there is as much variety of thought, and heart, and purpose, and honesty, and integrity on the other side of the House as on this side, and they cannot point to us all and say that we are the people who want, first, to sweat the young children, and then to send them out to defend our class. Hon. Members do not preach that doctrine in the country any longer. They did so for a long time, until, if they will excuse my using the expression, their bluff was called. No one now believes that, not even hon. Members opposite, so I think we can leave it out of consideration. When hon. Members talk about class feeling, that class feeling is not confined to any one section of the country. We all know that we are in some ways class-ridden, but England is not a class-ridden country. The reason why this is not a class-ridden country is because there is hardly a Member on the opposite side of the House who would not like to get to the Upper House if he got a chance; and, as long as you have that in your hearts, and as long as it is possible—
On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order for the Noble Lady to impute such unworthy motives to other Members of the House?
I am afraid that my attention was temporarily distracted, and that I did not hear fully the Noble Lady's remarks.
I was once told that, if people say something about you which strikes home, you resent it, but you do not resent anything that people say about you if you have no weakness at which they can strike. When I talk about people getting into the Upper House, I am talking about what every one of us knows. The Mover of the Motion laid stress, not so much on technical education, but on general education, and he said that to work well one must be fit. That is perfectly true, but to be fit one must be fed, and I feel that this is a time when we might talk about what I believe to be the most important of all the subjects that are before the country to-day, and that is the number of children in our elementary schools who are physically unfit because they are under-nourished or mal-nourished. I am all for fitness and physical exercises, and I do not even mind their being drilled. After all, hon. Members opposite are always quoting Russia. If they saw what is done to the children in Russia it would give them something to think about. Some of us think that physical exercises, even if they are called drill, are good for the children. I have never advocated, and never will advocate, anything for any child that I am not willing that my own children should have, and I think my boys are all the better for a little physical training, although, like yours, they hate it if it is forced on them.
We have 95,000 children in our elementary schools who are physically unfit, but we have found a way out. The Minister knows it as well as I do, and has faced up to it in his new Bill. I hope that we are soon going to see a tremendous development in open-air nursery schools. That is the real, proper way to deal with this question. If children can be given a good start on that basis, it will make them fit to take the education when the time comes to give it. This question of seeing that the children in our elementary schools are physically fit is more important, to my mind, even than the question of playgrounds when they get there, though I am all for playgrounds, and an enormous number of them have been provided. Yesterday the Minister said, in answer to a question about the feeding of school children, that, assuming it to be applied to all children, it would cost £21,000,000—
That was not the question I was asked.
Looking at the Motion, I fail to see that either the question of nursery schools or the question of the feeding of school-children is raised by it. I allowed the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) to go somewhat wide because he was making his maiden speech, but that cannot be applied to all hon. Members.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has talked about fitness, and surely, if you talk about fitness, you must talk about food.
The Motion speaks of physical training for the purpose of fitness, and we must confine ourselves to that subject.
That does for my speech. I do not know whether I shall be in order if I remind the House how many of our children are unfit to take physical training. I think that would be in order—
On a point of Order. It is not my purpose to assist the Noble Lady in her efforts, but I would like to ask you, Sir, if the scope of this Motion is not confined to juvenile training and employment.
The words on the Paper are:
I agree with the hon. Member that the question now before the House is:
"That this House is of opinion that a greater degree of technical and physical training should be given to juveniles,"
and so on as set forth on the Paper. But, unless the English language is to be very greatly distorted, I cannot see how technical or physical training can be held to include feeding.
I do not see how it is possible to train children who are not properly fed. I thought that one might refer, say, to the number of recruits for the Army who are found to be physically unfit, and that would bring us to the age at which they became unfit and the question whether they became unfit because of mal-nourishment or under-nourishment. I only wanted to dwell briefly on that question, and to remind the Government that the country was looking forward to their having a plan which would not only include physical and technical training but would make it perfectly certain that the children they were going to train and educate were physically fit. That would bring us to the question of nourishment—
The Noble Lady cannot raise that question on this Motion. The Motion is somewhat limited in scope.
I bow to your Ruling. As I have said, however, the point of my speech is gone, and I would conclude by saying that I think it is a bad plan for hon. Members opposite, when a new Member of the House, who is young and keen and obviously deeply interested in the welfare of young people, and really wants to help them, moves a Motion with that object, to impute to him motives which he never had. I hope that, when the Government increase the facilities for training, they will bear in mind the fact that the purpose of education is to prepare people for life—not to teach them what to think, but to teach them how to think. I hope, also, they will bear in mind the fact that we are going to have a shorter working week. We are living in one of the most revolutionary ages that man has ever gone through. We are living in an industrial revolutionary age and it is no good talking about what happened when you were boys.
Members on all sides of the House should keep rubbing into the Government that we will back them in any progressive scheme that they have. We have a five-year plan for road development and it is not too much to ask that we should have a five-year or ten-year plan for juvenile development over the whole country. The country wants it and expects the Government to do it. I hope it will come in the next five years, and it will if hon. Members will drop all that past nonsense and look at facts as they are to-day. We can assist the Government in bringing us into line with modern thought and modern conditions. We have tremendous problems. Let us face them. We have a young Minister of Education who is going to get our backing, and we have a Prime Minister who has always appealed to youth. [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members opposite do not understand. We have freedom in our party. We want a plan to help the 95,000 children who are not in a state to take the education that we want to give them. We want a plan for young men, not only to get them to go into industry but some sort of training when they get into industry. Some of us want continuation schools. I am sorry, Sir, but you have absolutely ruined my speech.
5.34 p.m.
I think everyone will agree with the terms of the Motion. The disagreement has been in the way it was presented. We must be a little generous because we must remember that every speaker has probably been somewhat cramped for style, having regard to what the original Motion was. It is difficult to keep within the very limited scope of the Motion. We have all been greatly disappointed at the alteration of it. As one who has served a great many years on the largest education committee in the country, the London County Council, I want to refer to some of the work that is actually being done along these lines. The hon. Member who moved the Motion, whether intentionally or not, has moved a kind of mild censure on his own Government, because the very things he is asking for are made difficult by the Education Act, and because hon. Members opposite voted unanimously the other night against any allowance in respect of children who remain at school after the age of 14. You cannot carry out the things that are asked for within the normal limits of the elementary school age. It has to be considerably extended. The hon. Member showed that he is not in touch with modern developments in education. Radio is being used in schools, and experiments are being carried out to see whether it can be further extended. As for lectures for teachers, ask the teachers what they think about that. There are any number of specialists and any number of subjects on which lecturers are supplied.
I did not mean itinerant lecturers to lecture the teachers but to lecture the pupils.
The hon. Member distinctly said the teachers. If he meant something different, that is another matter. Even in the elementary schools itinerant teachers go round. I took the chair the other night at a lecture to teachers on Mussolini. The next night my friend Lord Passfield took the chair at a lecture to teachers on Stalin. There is a certain amount of time compulsorily allocated every week even in the elementary schools—20 minutes if it is three days a week and half-an-hour if it is two days a week—to physical training. That is a compulsory part of the curriculum. To bring vocational training within the ordinary school age is quite impossible and educational authorities would oppose it very strongly. I discussed this Motion with some of the education experts across the bridge, and they said that while there is a certain amount of technical education, half a day every week, they certainly were not going to agree that they can further cramp the general education in the ordinary school life in order to extend what is called technical education. A good deal, however, is being done along those lines.
This, of course, gives us the whole case for raising the school age if anything effective is to result from it. Special vocational training is given in a number of schools for those who do not leave until 16. They enter at 13 and have to go through a three years' course of specialising in some sort of vocation, but the education directors say, "When we have done that and sent them out into the world, there are no jobs for them to take up." That is another problem altogether which has to be faced, though it cannot be dealt with in the ambit of this Motion. It raises other very serious problems which, whether people like the mention of the word "Socialism" or not, have to be indicated in regard to a thorough reorganisation of society and the whole economic system before we can arrive at a solution along those lines.
They include a variety of trades, such as engineering, printing, photo-engraving, lithography and so forth. The Minister himself attended a function near at hand a little while ago where a very excellent example of technical training was given in regard to the restaurant and hotel business, and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) mentioned a technical school where instruction was given in his own trade of bakery and confectionery.
This indicates that, as far as they are able, within the limits of the funds at their disposal and of the age limitation, education authorities are not dead to possibilities in this connection. It is not confined to boys. The girls are being looked after in the same manner. I think we want some sort of reorganisation of the weight of education. We draw a snobbish line at what we call secondary education. I am inclined to think we ought to classify vocational training beyond the normal school age as secondary education, just as we do on the purely literary side. There is a feeling of inferiority among the lads and lasses who elect to take training on the vocational side. There can be no suggestion that they are less likely to turn out valuable citizens than those who take the purely literary side. It perpetuates snobbish class differences and draws a line of inferiority where it should no longer be. You can classify the whole as secondary education with two branch lines, one leading to specialisation on purely vocational lines and another pursuing it on what we should call the purely literary side. With regard to physical education and training, a good deal more can be done, but a great deal is being done.
A certain amount of physical training is given every day in all our schools. On my way to the House I see crowds of young people in a school playing-field undergoing football training under the coaching of their masters. Things were different when I went to school and I am sorry that we did not then have what they have now. It shows that education authorities are not blind and, given a Government which would not cramp and cut down their allowances and would help them in regard to raising the school age, without any snag such as beneficial employment, I think we should be able to make a very definite advance along these lines. A certain amount of handicraft work is undertaken in elementary schools every week, and for those who go to the central schools there is a four years' course largely devoted to vocational training. In the elementary schools there are something like 284 centres or rooms set apart for work with tools. Even in those schools the young people are trained in the purpose of tools and in mechanical principles underlying their construction, in the design and use of certain joints and the processes involved in basic methods of construction, and in principles of elementary design and decoration, as applied to craftwork, and so on. These are all indicative of the great advance that is being made in the interpretation of the word "education" in these days.
If there is mass education it is not the fault of the education authorities, but rather of the Government who cramp people and do not allow them to have the special schools and the necessary supply of teachers. But there is a great deal of improvement in connection with specialisation. The purpose of education, surely, is not to turn out more efficient workers or more efficient machines. Many years ago I remember taking part with Dr. Paton, the famous headmaster of Manchester Grammar School, in a conference on the right use of leisure. That is the problem perhaps more than anything else in these days. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) will remember the time when he and I, during our enforced absence from this House, sat at the London Sessions and analysed the calendar, and found that over 60 per cent. of the prisoners were 21 years of age or under. The police testified that when many of these young people left school they were among the brightest of the pupils and had good characters and reputations, but when they came out into the world without any occupation they drifted into the streets, got into bad company and ultimately found themselves in the hands of the police. You will doubtless find the same sort of thing occurring to-day.
Although we give our support to the Motion, I hope that the House will not interpret it to mean that we hope to turn out boys and girls to work the industrial machine much better, but rather to turn them out with the object of making better citizens. We have to consider ways and means for a better distribution of the proceeds of labour so that leisure may be used to the best advantage, and the maximum benefit may be derived from the education which is being given our boys and girls, so that the country reaps the full reward for the money spent in that connection. Whatever may be the underlying motive of the hon. Member in moving the Motion, and whatever may have been read into his speech, I am glad that he has given the House an opportunity of discussing this question. Last Wednesday we discussed the question of defence, but this is a more important kind of defence than that discussed on that occasion. If we can, along these lines, build up an independent, virile race of young men and women, both intellectually and physically, it will do more than all the guns and arms or anything else of which we can possibly think to keep this nation ahead of other nations. I am sure that there will be no division in the House on this occasion, but I again emphasise that we are not supporting the Motion because the proposal would tend to make better wage-earning machines, but because we think it would make better men and women and enable them to work out a better system of society.
5.50 p.m.
I must begin by correcting an error which crept into the end of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), when he said that last Wednesday we discussed defence. I have the best reason for knowing that we spent the whole of last Wednesday discussing education.
I meant Friday.
I also have reason for knowing that we spent the whole of Thursday discussing this matter, and we spent most of yesterday discussing education of a different kind. It is symptomatic of the interest which is now being taken in education that we should again to-day be discussing the same problem. I was very pleased to see on the Order Paper the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). In the course of some years in the House, during which I have always taken an interest in educational matters, I have heard a considerable number of education Debates, usually at rather long intervals and always sparsely attended. I have noticed that, while we deal at considerable length with how long children are to be kept at school, what sort of schools they are to be, and how much we are to pay the people who teach in them, who build them or maintain them, we very seldom discuss the most important problem of all, namely, what the children learn when they are in those schools. I hoped that this evening would provide me with a good deal of useful information and education upon that most vital subject, but I confess that as a result of the Debate so far it has not been in the nature of a continuous course of instruction. As a matter of interest, I noted down during the speeches of hon. Members what Departments of State it would be necessary for me to occupy to give them a full and satisfactory answer to all the subjects which they have raised. Besides being President of the Board of Education, I should have to be Minister of Health, Minister of Labour, Secretary of State for War, and, but for your intervention, Mr. Speaker, Minister of Agriculture as well. I have intervened at this moment because I should like to indicate to the House what I believe the content of this Motion really to be and the lines upon which the Government are working, in the hope that during the remainder of the Debate attention may perhaps be focused on those particular points, so that something of greater value may emerge from them.
Hon. Members opposite, I think, have been very much less than fair to my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, and have not only misunderstood, but rather misrepresented him, not only in regard to the matter, but also the method. It comes largely from the misunderstanding of a particular word, which is used possibly in error by my hon. Friend when he speaks of technical education. I think that if my hon. Friend had described it, as he really intended it to be, as practical education, Members on the opposite side of the House would have had a fuller realisation of what he meant. Those of us who have to deal with educational administration assign to words like "technical education" particular meanings which I do not believe were in the mind of my hon. Friend. Technical education to us conjures up visions of that sort of special vocational, intensive training which is given in the junior technical schools or the technical colleges. I do not think that it was that, but a general practical outlook upon education and a general practical instruction, which my hon. Friend had in mind in moving his Motion.
But there is, although he certainly put it right in his speech—he made it clear what his intention was—one thing in the drafting of the Motion which I dislike. It is, that this instruction shall be given to fit the children for the changing conditions of industry. The emphasis was laid upon the advantage of what I am going to call practical instruction and technical education simply from the industrial point of view. But my hon. Friend, in his speech, made it clear that he recognises that, important as is the employment aspect, as that aspect must always be, in educational affairs, it is not the only thing, and that the object of our education is to fit a man to play his part in the industrial employment which is facing him in the future. But above that, it has to fit him to live a happy, contented and useful life as an individual, and to be able to bear, with intelligence and responsibility, the obligations of citizenship which are put upon him under a democracy. The education in our elementary schools provides for all these three objects, and it is balanced among them and does not weigh too much towards one side or the other.
I gathered from the speech of the hon. Member that he was in complete agreement with what, I think, we should all lay down as the fundamental principle, namely, that the education which we give in the public elementary schools, whether the age of the children is 14 or 15, should not be vocational in character. To start with, it is impossible to give a vocational training. When one thinks of the schools up and down the country and of the sort of facilities needed in a junior technical school in order to give vocational training, one realises at once the utter impossibility of being able to do it. Besides, we do not want to do it. How can you, when you are dealing with 5,000,000 children in the schools, say exactly what their vocation will be and start to train them for it and for nothing else? We have, of course, as a very useful and valuable adjunct to the general educational system, a system of vocational training on the technical side. That is extremely valuable, but we have even then to be very careful to see that the output of this vocational training is related as closely as possible to the demand in the particular vocation. We also have to see, in that vocational training, that liberal education occupies a very large proportion of the time of the children.
The demand of employment and industry upon the child in the public elementary schools is not a specialist knowledge of a particular trade, but a quickness of hand and of brain which will be useful to him all his life, and not merely on its industrial side. I think that a good many people are unaware of the immense change which has come over our whole conception of education in the last generation. It is not untrue to say that there has been something very like a revolution in our education ideas in the past generation and that all of us are to-day treating as education and regarding as educational things which our fathers or our grandfathers would have thought to have had no connection with it at all. We are departing more and more from the old, strict academic point of view of education, an education very often little related to the practical facts of life, and we are inclining more and more towards this new humanistic practical education, especially in the later years of the child's school life. That change manifests itself in two ways, first of all in actual practical teaching, in realising that for many children the best way of arousing their interest and curiosity and of satisfying their desire for some sort of self-expression is through practical work. It is even possible, by means of practical work, to quicken not only the hand, but the brain of the child, because it appeals to it, rather than to do it by the mere academic approach.
That is why in almost every department in the country—I should say 86 per cent. of them—which includes senior children, there are facilities for practical instruction. Instruction is given in woodwork, metal work, and domestic science. Over 6,000 departments have school gardens and give practical instruction in gardening. The development of the teaching of practical subjects is one way in which the new idea is manifesting itself. Another is the way in which we try to relate the teaching of more academic subjects, which still must be taught, to life, rather than teaching them in a vacuum. Some hon. Members may remember a story, which I think is a very revealing one, in a book by Julian Huxley, called "African Views." It relates to a. visit which the author paid to a small school in the interior of Africa, where a number of small black children were receiving education, as it happened, in mathematics. The lesson which he heard being set for those children was to convert 999,000 pence into pounds, shillings and pence. That problem was not one that was really related to the practical lives of those children.
Are we expected to answer that problem?
After the last test which was put to the House I realise that a further period of preparation might be necessary. How could you expect a small African child to be interested in the number of pounds, shillings and pence in about 1,000,000 pence? If the problem set had been this: "If two oxen will buy one wife, how long will it take to buy five wives?" that would have been relating instruction to the practical interest and outlook of the child. It would have attracted his attention and aroused his curiosity, and he would have thought that the lesson he had learned would have been some practical value to him in after life.
There is a great deal to be done in trying to relate the more academic subjects to matters which are of practical interest to the children rather than teaching them simply as separate entities in themselves. In this respect the system of school visits which is growing up is of value in trying, for instance, to relate art teaching to an art gallery visit, associating industrial history with a visit to a factory, and associating a history lesson with a visit to some historic monument. The attempt to fix the lessons that are being taught in the child's mind by these visits cannot but help in the way of visual memory. One point my hon. Friend made has been dealt with already. In many cases juvenile employment committees arrange for lectures in school in regard to factory life, and visits are paid to factories so that the child can relate some of the practical work learned at school to the factory in which he may have to have his training later.
The development of this new trend of education depends, above all, on the completion of the process of reorganisation. Unless you have this new system of senior schools it is impossible to provide the facilities necessary for practical instruction. The small mixed school in the country cannot provide the space and cannot afford the apparatus necessary for this kind of instruction. There is this sfurther point to be considered, that these new methods of teaching academic subjects cannot be practised if the age group in the classes the teacher has to teach is too big. If you have a teacher teaching a class with ages spreading over from eight to 14, as you may well have in a mixed school, and giving a class of teaching which is appropriate only to the older child and which only the older child can appreciate and take advantage of, it is impossible. It is only when you have aggregation in your senior schools, when you have classes which cover a similar age group, that teaching of this kind becomes possible and effective.
Therefore, the very best thing that any Government can do to carry out the terms of the Motion is to assist in pressing on with reorganisation. I would point out to my hon. Friend opposite, who allowed a little political acrimony to creep almost imperceptibly into an otherwise impeccable address, that by the recent Circular 1444, which I have no doubt has been welcomed by his authority as it has been welcomed by others, we have pressed on reorganisation in two most practical ways, and that is by the 50 per cent. building grant and the increase of the grant for transport charges.
Now I come to the other side of the Motion, the question of physical training. Physical training is not only important from the point of view of the industrial future of the person concerned; it is just as important from the standpoint of his responsibility as a citizen and his happiness as an individual. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Morgan) asked whether physical training would have made Nelson a better sailor or Pope a better poet. Very likely not, but it might have made both of them happier men. Anybody who reads the life of Pope and notes the physical sufferings and the physical inferiority which beset him all his life must feel that even he would have profited from a course in one of our new physical training organisations. The hon. Member asks, why have physical training organizers? The House will realise that one of the most important requests that we make to local authorities in the Circular on physical training is the importance of organisation. Physical training must consist of something more than mere "physical jerks." Unless you have someone responsible for the organisation, a trained man in the centre who can co- ordinate, advise and rub up the knowledge of the individual teachers, we are afraid that physical training will become merely mechanical. Therefore we stress the importance of having an organiser.
There is one thing that I should not like to go uncorrected. My hon. Friend who moved the Motion and the hon. Member who seconded it spoke as if nothing was done to-day for physical education and training in elementary schools. The seconder of the Motion asked how long were we going to rely on charity for playgrounds. We do not rely on charity for playgrounds and playing-fields for our schools. For a long time local authorities and the State have spent large sums of money upon their provision. Nor is it fair to overlook the amount of actual physical instruction which is given to schools or the amount of time devoted to games out of school hours at the expense of the teachers' time and trouble. The House ought to realise how much the teachers give up in this respect. There is the example of a well-known League in Manchester where hundreds of games are organised, which must cast upon the individual teachers an immense burden, but it is done enthusiastically and voluntarily.
I hope that the Circular we have issued will have the effect of stimulating what is already a largely growing interest in physical education, not only games but training as well. I think we all realise that whether as a unit in the industrial machine, whether as an individual, whether as a citizen, the man or woman is going to be made more valuable and much happier if he and she is healthy, and that health is largely going to be determined by the amount of physical education you give them during the time they are at school.
I should not like to conclude without referring to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew). The fact that he spoke with such a wealth of personal experience behind him, the eloquence of his words and his perfect phrasing all combined to attract the attention of the House. I hope that we shall hear him speak many times in the future, although I am not sure that I can guarantee to him when he is not making a maiden speech such a quiet hearing as he had to-night. But I have no doubt that he is just as ready to take knocks as he is anxious to give them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought forward the Motion. It has given us an opportunity for useful debate, and I am sure that the fact that the House will unanimously assent to the Motion will be helpful in the campaign that all of us who are interested in education are conducting, on the lines of practical education, with increased demands for physical instruction.
6.13 p.m.
Perhaps I ought to apologise for intruding again in an education debate after having spoken on education yesterday, but I know that the Government have intimated their intention of embarking on big educational schemes, and any little influence that I have in directing the way of those schemes I wish to bring to bear. I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) was pulled up in attempting to deal with the feeding aspect. The main contribution that I had to make was on that aspect, but when I saw the terrible fate that overcame her when she attempted to deal with it, it reminded me of those beautiful lines of her fellow countryman, Bret Harte:
"Then Abner Dean of Angels, raised a point of order when,
A chunk of old red sandstone caught him in the abdomen;
He smiled a kind of sickly smile and curled up on the floor
And the subsequent proceedings interested him no more."
That is what happened to t he Noble Lady to-day. I do not want to be landed in the same position. While she was speaking with so much vigour I put to myself a very rude question, which one would not ask publicly but which is permissible to put privately. I wondered what is the age of the Noble Lady. I would not ask the question publicly. I still wonder about her age. I know that she is the mother of a family, that she has been a very serious and responsible Member of this House for many years and has borne her full share in the work of governing the nation. I said to myself, the kind of education I want for the people of this country is an education which brings all the women of the same age, the same domestic experience to the same stage in life with the same vitality, vigour and general health that the Noble Lady evidently enjoys. I am not quite sure whether it is education that is alone responsible or other extraneous things. It may be that they do things better in old Virginia than in Great Britain. If the Noble Lady has the same capacity for carrying out her domestic duties, if she cooks a chop and scrubs a floor with the same dexterity as she handles a debate in this House, then the Noble Lord in the other place has indeed a domestic treasure.
I understood that we were not allowed to discuss feeding.
I understood the hon. Member to be making some reference to technical education.
Is it really customary to discuss the age of a woman in public?
I am quite sure that I have not the faintest idea of the age of the Noble Lady. She looks 19, but, judging by the tremendous amount of work she has done, she must be nearly as old as the Prime Minister.
I want to make one or two serious points. The President of the Board of Education proposes to embark on a large-scale development of physical education. I want him to be sure before he starts any development of this nature that his experts on this work know what is a good system of physical education. When I was a member of an education authority and of the physical instruction committee, I made this surprising discovery, that there was a very alarming amount of serious physical breakdowns among the physical instruction staff, much more serious than among ordinary teachers engaged in ordinary class work. They were picked young folk, men and women. They had entered into this line of life because they were healthy and athletic. They had gone to training colleges specially for physical training purposes, to learn the theory of physical training and its practice, and yet these young folk, after only two or three years active work, were breaking down on all hands, not with trivial complaints but with serious physical disabilities which put them out of action for prolonged periods. I want the Minister to make sure that they know what is the best type of physical education, because if the teachers break down it is at least possible to ask whether the type of training which destroys the teachers is going to be good for the young ones. I want the Minister to discuss the matter seriously not with his physical training experts but with his medical experts before he starts any large-scale schemes of this description.
Secondly, with regard to the games aspect of the matter, I am all in favour of extending the games aspect of school education. Every hour that is taken out of the ordinary curriculum and devoted to games is a net gain to the youngsters. I have always felt that generally we older persons talk about school life as a preparation for life. It is not a preparation for life. It is life, and a most important part of life. The youngsters have got to regard this bit of their life as an end in itself. We who are older are inclined to think that what they are doing in their school life has some reference to what we are going to make them do later on. This period of their life should be as happy a period as we can possibly make it. Probably the way in which we adults can make the life of youngsters most happy is to keep out of their way more than we do just now. When we talk about school games we talk about organised and supervised games, with the teacher standing over them with a cane somewhere in the background. It may be a long way in the background, but it is there.
You are like me—getting old.
I am not so old as to throw my youth entirely away. I can remember my childhood and the supervised games. No. As I see it, the best educational value of games lies in the voluntary co-operation of a group with their own leader, chosen from their midst because of his qualities of leadership, and in the doing of it developing his qualities of leadership, and his companions developing the capacity of putting themselves under a chosen leadership. That is the value of games, and such a game is played with zest. There is life and enjoyment, energy and vigour. There may be some swearing and punching going on, which would not be the case if a teacher were supervising it, but it has been life and enjoyment, and it has good educational results. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider that aspect of education, and that in talking about games he will see that they are games and not another lesson. I am not sure that I am enthusiastic about the provision of playing grounds. The best games I had as a school boy were never on the public playing-fields provided for the purpose, but in those places which were absolutely forbidden. There was an element of risk, just as poaching is an infinitely better game than going out shooting. Games which are played by boys in defiance of the regulations are infinitely better for their moral character than those which are run formally on Sunday school lines.
Does the hon. Member mean that we should provide playing fields and then shut them up?
As a matter of fact that is what happens; they are only open between four and seven, and usually there is a custodian with a whistle. In regard to technical education, it is nonsense to talk about teaching young children under 14 a particular education of a technical character. The purpose of education should be to secure activity of the child—not passivity. Lectures and wireless are passive things as far as the child is concerned; he has to sit and listen. A certain amount of passive watching something being done is good, but in general it is activity that is wanted. We must not think that we can make children under 14 little engineers or joiners. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) spoke in these terms. He talked about third-alley occupations. What are blind-alley occupations in these days? The skilled trades are the blindest alleys of the whole lot. A good, big strong labourer is mobile; he can shift from industry to to industry. It is not impossible for a builder's labourer to become an engineer's labourer, and for an engineer's labourer to become a shipyard labourer. A contemporary of my own was a skilled craftsman in the textile industry, a calico printer, a trade which takes a seven years' apprenticeship. He was in a trade union as exclusive and as powerful as any trade union. In the old days he earned £3 10s. and £4 a week when other skilled craftsmen were getting only £2 10s. To-day he is unemployed. There is nowhere that he can go with his craft. He carries my golf clubs on the golf course. It is a shocking thing; and I feel it myself. I feel that he is degraded, and that I am degraded. It is a shocking thing to think that life can offer nothing else to this man of skill than performing what is a menial task. I believe that he could beat me at golf, too.
Therefore, I want the right hon. Gentleman not to start turning the curriculum of our elementary schools upside down in an attempt to fit in some special handicraft of that description. If he attempts to overturn the curriculum of the elementary schools he will find that the storm which burst around his devoted head on the question of the employment regulations will be repeated. The hon. Member for Southampton wanted instructional schools to be increased and intensified, physical training in elementary schools, so that children might be saved from the degrading effects of the Socialist point of view. I want to tell the hon. Member that I was educated in a school where there was any amount of religious instruction. The only prizes I ever got were for religious knowledge—a beautiful collection. The only prizes I got in the secondary school were for fencing and drill. I got a military training, I attended camps, I had a good, religious, Conservative, patriotic, Imperialistic atmosphere round me all my early days—and here I am. The moral which I wish to convey to the hon. Member for Southampton is that if he thinks that children are just so much plastic clay which can be put into a mould, and that they are going to come out according to pattern when they have reached adult life, he is mistaken. Thank God for it, that never in the whole human history has the older generation been able to enforce its will upon the rising generation.
6.32 p.m.
In supporting the Motion I wish to deal with the physical training aspect of the question. Having myself derived such great benefits from physical training and the playing of games, I feel very deeply that all young folk in this country should have opportunities similar to those which I enjoyed. There is to-day an increasing realisation, which has been voiced on every side of the House, of the value of games and physical exercise. In the circular of 13th January sent out by the Board of Education reference was made to the importance of physical education and the playing of games but there is a grave danger at the present time that the people who have been trained to play games and who are able to play games, will be denied the opportunity of taking part in games because of a lack of adequate playing fields accommodation in this country. There is already a grave lack of proper space for this purpose and if children and young people are to be trained to play games and enjoy them, a greater amount of space for this purpose will be needed in the years to come. The position is growing more and more serious.
I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the fact that since 1929, within a radius of 10 miles of this House, 21,000 acres have been developed for building including 11,000 acres hitherto used as or suitable for use as playing fields. That space which ought to have been preserved for the youth of future generations has now been lost and can never be got back again. Greater London needs some 25,000 acres of open spaces to meet the needs of its rapidly expanding population. Yet we have the anomalous state of affairs that playing space which is so urgently needed is being taken for building purposes. The undeveloped area within the circle which I have indicated has shrunk to 7,500 acres. Those facts in reference to London are typical of what is happening in many other parts of the country and it is of the utmost importance that immediate steps should be taken to see that the seizure of the remaining area of green playing fields available is stopped at once. Otherwise, the value which has been so much stressed to-day of recreational facilities will be lost to future generations.
The position in London is notorious. Only one-third of the cricket clubs and football clubs, including young people of under 14 as well as the older people, are abe to secure pitches on our open spaces and they are only able to play on those pitches occasionally. A position of that kind is surely intolerable in a country which prides itself upon the physique of its young people, upon their sportsmanship and their ability in the playing of games. That we should not provide adequate playing space for our young people is a crying shame and a blot on our national reputation which ought at once to be removed. Not only does this state of things exist in our towns but it is estimated that even in the countryside public recreation grounds are only available to cater for the needs of one-tenth of that part of the community who wish to play games. There are numerous instances in which the conditions in this respect are so bad that schools sports which ought to be held in open spaces have to be held on the roads. That is a state of things which must be taken in hand at once. Its continuance would be intolerable.
The importance of games in the building up of character and the development of individuality cannot be over-estimated. Foreign countries have recognised the importance of training their youth in this way. They have, however, developed such training upon lines which would not be acceptable in this country. They have put their young people into uniforms and given them arms. We prefer to put our young people into football jerseys and shorts or into cricket clothes. We believe that the character of our young people can best be developed by team work, by comradeship and by loyalty among themselves. But that development of character and individuality cannot be obtained unless suitable playing spaces are available for the young and for those who desire recreation.
The question of the use of leisure becomes of greater importance every day. Part of the leisure time which is available to us ought obviously to be used for physical recreation and the playing of games, and unless suitable open spaces are available in which to spend that leisure time, then, almost inevitably, it will be ill-spent instead of well-spent. I urge that every effort should be made to provide ample space for this purpose. Only the other day I saw a new elementary school on which an extravagant sum—in my opinion—had been spent. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] The very best of everything had been put into that school-building and I submit that with changing conditions and the development of new ideas year by year, that school building will probably soon be out of date. Would it not have been far better, if not so much had been spent upon the school and a little of the money had been devoted to securing adequate playing space around the school. The school could always be rebuilt, provided too much had not been spent upon it, but once the open space round the school has been built upon, never again will it become available for the young people who ought to have it.
Those young people who do their work in the school buildings ought to have facilities for open-air recreation close by the school. Playing fields which are miles away from the school are no use to young children. They ought to have an open space close to the school. It is, I submit, of the utmost importance that in the building of new schools and also in the planning of new areas, provision should be made for adequate space close to and if possible adjoining the school building. As I say, the importance of this subject can not be over-estimated, and while we can train our young folk and give them physical education, there is no point in doing so unless we preserve for them those open green spaces which are vital to the future well-being of the nation.
6.43 p.m.
We all admire the prowess of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) in the realm of sport. He has made a great name for himself and we all recognise the high reputation which he has gained, and I venture to say that we also admire him for the desire expressed in his speech to-day to preserve, as playing fields, some of the open spaces around London. I think that every city authority in this country ought to have regard to the fact that so many possible playing fields are now being eaten up by building development. If something could be done in that respect it would be a benefit for the children of our country in the future. I fear, however, that I cannot go with the hon. Member in his statement concerning the cost of schools. The assumption underlying his remarks seemed to be that you could not have a very beautiful school and also a playing field around it. The best education authorities in the country to-day are providing schools into every classroom of which the sunlight can enter, but they are also reserving space for very fine playing fields.
It means much to a child that he should be educated in a bright sunny classroom. We know what the old classrooms were like. They were gloomy, many of them were on second floors, and they seemed to be constructed in such a way that the sunlight could not enter them. I am glad that education authorities are now ensuring that sunlight shall enter the classrooms and that the classrooms should be on the ground floor with a nice courtyard in the centre of the building. The hon. Member must surely agree that that is far better and will have a finer effect on the temperament of the children than ramshackle places which, as he himself admitted, would be ready for pulling down in 10 years time.
I am not for a moment suggesting that buildings should be put up from which the sunlight is shut out. I am merely suggesting that where a certain sum of money only is available for a school, rather less should be spent on the building and a certain amount should be spent on securing an open space around the building.
The hon. Member is entitled to his view, of course, but I take the view that even now, with probably limited resources on the part of some education authorities, we should put up the best possible buildings, and I believe the Minister himself would encourage such a policy as that. Many of us will agree with most of the things that the Minister has said this afternoon. I think he put his finger on many things that are very desirable in regard to juvenile education. I take the view that practical work applied to boys and girls is very useful and is also a source of happiness to the child. I think that the man who is purely intellectual and can do nothing with his hands—I say this with all due respect in this House—is not a fully developed man. I take it that the man who is able to use both his hands and his brains is the man who will go farthest in the world and get the most happiness out of his activities on this earth.
I remember reading the statement of a very fine Oxford professor who made a special point of the fact that man was a tool-using animal, that it was in his blood and in his instincts, and that if a man cannot get access to tools, his nature loses something of value on that account. I can also agree with the Minister when he feels that certain lessons which are given should be rather taken away from the abstract and be given some realistic aspect. It was on some such principle as that that last Thursday I was responsible for bringing certain secondary school girls here to hear the Minister deliver his Education Bill speech. They were able to have a real lesson in Parliamentary history, and having heard the Debate—of course, it is no reflection on the Minister, who has had a very difficult job to do in that connection—I am not sure that the House was quite kind to those kiddies. However, they have since written to say that they thoroughly enjoyed the experience and that they will never forget it.
I rose to-night mainly to put forward what is probably a special aspect of this matter. I have already said that man is a tool-using animal, and I think that that possibly has been expressed more completely and happily by men like William Morris and John Ruskin, who believed that the greatest joy of life was to be obtained out of the deft use of the fingers, or, shall we say, the impressing upon one's work of one's imagination and the producing of really beautiful things. I am not one of those who believe that all work is ugly or miserable. I believe that a man should get a certain enjoyment out of his work, and I think our educational system ought to take note of that fact. It ought to be designed in order that man can extract out of his work that joy and happiness of which both Ruskin and Morris talked. Let us take a great industrial town like my own town, Sheffield. Its wares are noted all over the earth. In cutlery, in silverware, in steel, I think we can say that Sheffield's fame has got abroad pretty well, but the wonderful quality of Sheffield's ware has not been brought about except by the exercise in a marvellous degree of craftsmanship on the part of its workers. That craftsmanship runs in families. I am not going to weary the House with a description of the apprenticeship system as it prevails in many of the crafts in Sheffield. It is enough for me to say that a boy used to start at about 12 or earlier, and he was not out of his time until he was 21. Having got out of his time, he was in possession of the mysteries of his craft, and he could become in his own day and generation a "mester," as they call it in Sheffield, and produce those marvellous products for which Sheffield is famous.
I am very proud to be able to add my testimony to the wonderful tributes that have been paid to the degree of crafts- manship that has been attained in the industries of Sheffield, but what is happening to-day? We are gradually losing this craftsmanship. It is gradually being eliminated by the introduction of machinery. There are even yet a few firms in our city where one can go and see crafts being exercised and followed that have been in existence 100 years, but generally the tendency is that machinery is gradually abolishing that wonderful craftsmanship, that deftness of finger and sharpness of eye, that made these men into real craftsmen. What is taking its place? Generally—and I do not apply this only to Sheffield—if that marvellous craftsmanship of the English people becomes lost, I fear we have lost something which we can never replace. When we look upon a cathedral front and see its marvellous beauty, we ought to remember that that has been done by English hands, probably not paid much by way of wages. It has been done by craftsmen who loved their craft, and if the introduction, say, of technical schools is going to retain that wonderful deftness of touch and that beautiful insight, I think we can all look upon this Motion with a great deal of pleasure and give it encouragement.
It is on those lines, as they apply to a large industrial city that is gradually losing its craftsmen, that I wish to speak. I know men to-day who are out of work but who, if they had the necessary material, could make a thing as beautiful as the Mace on the Table, and do it all by hand. I know men out of work who could make beautiful silver things of that description, but there is nothing for them to do to-day because machinery has taken their place. If this Motion will help us to retain some of that craft or put something in its place, I think it is all to the good.
I can agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he speaks about physical training. I think that many local authorities are doing very fine work in the provision of playing fields. I would not regiment the leisure of the children too much. A certain amount of overseeing, probably, has to be done, and there is a good deal of pleasure and enjoyment to be got out of team work. If it goes no farther than that, I think we can say that the overseeing game has been very beneficial to the child. The real enjoyment of the child, however, comes when he is put into a field where there are brooks and trees. If he is allowed to follow his own resources and his own bent and to get his own enjoyment, he will find exactly that thing which will provide him with most happiness. It is necessary for local authorities to provide playing fields, and I am glad that many of them are doing so, in spite of the encroachment of building on the outskirts of our cities. I can give this Motion my entire approval, believing that the establishment of technical schools—and may be we shall have to arrive at that particular solution of this problem ultimately—will really redound to the benefit, not only of industry but of the individual, and also to his happiness.
6.55 p.m.
About five and a half years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the bench below me he was discussing the then School Attendance Bill, and once craved Mr. Dunnico's indulgence because he intended to say a few words about education, and he hoped that that might be in order on a Measure that was supposed to deal with education, and with that suavity which is characteristic of him, he even managed to persuade Mr. Dunnico to allow him to proceed. This afternoon, at any rate, we have had a discussion on which education has been in order, and I think the educational world will be considerably benefited by the Minister's own contribution to this discussion, in the educational aspect of his speech. He reminded us some six years ago that we were not men to be educated, but that we were educated to be men, and that, I take it, is really the basis of this Motion. The Motion, I think, is, as the Minister said, rather unfortunately drawn in its final words, and if, like an epigram, the sting is to be found in its tail, perhaps this sting is rather more harmful than it need have been. Certainly, in expressing my intention not to vote, against the Motion, I must be allowed to give my own very liberal interpretation to the last five or six words of it.
I could not help thinking that the speeches of both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion were very good examples of Conservatism—the rapid pursuit of the last evil which has ceased to be dangerous. I am quite sure the Minister will agree—in fact, he said so in his speech—that a very great deal more is being done by the local education authorities along the lines advocated in this Motion than either the Mover or the Seconder, or even the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), gave them credit for. There is now, in the area of practically every local education authority, a determined effort to see that for all the children in the schools there shall be playing facilities that are suitable to their age.
I join issue with the Minister when he seems to think that reorganisation will solve a good many of these problems. We are beginning to use the word "reorganisation" as we used to use the word "correlation" 10 or 20 years ago in education. Correlation was going to be the end of all our troubles. In fact, the Minister almost said so this afternoon, when he spoke of the relationship between the academic and practical subjects in the schools. There is a story of a little girl who had been taught how to spell "butterfly" and how to draw a butterfly, and then there was to be a lesson on the various stages of the butterfly, and when the teacher pinned a diagram on the board, the little girl was heard to mutter, "That darned butterfly again." In my view, reorganisation will probably accentuate rather than solve the problem, because something far more is necessary if you are going to resolve the constant clash between the practical and the academic in education. Let us be sure of this, that all the talk about vocational education is very largely a use of cant phrase. The ordinary so-called academic education is only the vocational education of the parson, the pedagogue, and the politician. It was originally founded, and universities were largely used through the Middle Ages, to recruit those three classes of the community, and that education was purely vocational, although to-day it is regarded as something above the vocational, and anything which enables a man to use his hands is regarded as something inferior.
I believe that no man is truly educated unless he can use, with a reasonable degree of skill and safety to himself and those surrounding him, the ordinary tools of the carpenter and the gardener. If he cannot do that, I very much doubt whether he can be regarded as a truly educated man, and in this age, when we have so many activities to engage us industrially, surely it is wrong to think that those who are going to play their part in the nation's life by the use of their hands are in some way inferior to those who merely exist to confuse our minds by their talk. No one can sit on a bench of magistrates and listen to the ordinary horny-handed son of toil telling the truth, and then listen to cross-examining counsel trying to get him to say something else, without realising that a great deal of what we regard as academic skill can be devoted to bad purposes.
I believe it is not reorganisation we require, but an assimilation of the various types of post-primary education. I am a believer in having one post-primary school in which the academic and technical subjects are taught side by side. We have far too many misfits in our educational system. Children get into secondary schools when they should have gone into the technical schools, and children who are rather backward and get into the technical schools sometimes prove when they reach 14 or 15 that they would have fully justified being given a secondary education. If you had them in the same school you could move them from one side to the other more easily than you can remove them from one school to another. There is a feeling of stigma attaching to a child moved from a secondary school to a technical school, but if the child were moved from the academic side to the technical side in the same school, there would probably be no difficulty.
I had a most unfortunate experience when I was teaching. Included in the syllabus handed to me was a lesson on the enclosure of commons. I thought the most practical way was to get the enclosure award for the parish in which I was, and show the children what had been the practical effect on the parish. Unfortunately, as I was coming to the end of it the chairman of the managers, whose family were the principal gainers by the enclosure, happened to walk into the room. He suggested that it was not history, and he hoped that I would not take local illustrations for future lessons. There is undoubtedly a great danger sometimes confronting the teacher who attempts to deal with these subjects in that way. I recollect giving a lesson on the repeal of the Corn Laws during one of the General Elections in 1910, and merely because I said that these things were not now accepted quite as readily as they were a few years before, one of the parents wrote to the then President of the Board of Education to complain that his boy was being taught Tariff Reform at school.
A school in which I used to teach has become a senior non-selective central school which devotes considerable time to the educational uses of handwork. They have been able to produce there, by boys working together, complete sets of furniture that are a credit to the school and give a great sense of pride to the boys in their achievement. I regard practical subjects as being chiefly valuable because they enable a type of child who occasionally can get little chance of achievement out of the ordinary subjects to say, "Here is something that I can do. It represents my contribution to the highest standard of work attainable in this school." I believe it is a mistake to suggest that a child who is bright in ordinary subjects must necessarily be dull at handwork, or vice versa. I believe there is no ground for holding that view. Generally speaking, the bright child is bright with his hands as well as on the academic side. But there are some who can achieve nothing on the academic side and can achieve something on the practical side, and if it gives them courage to feel that they are able to express themselves it may be that that courage will carry over to the academic side and assist them to tackle some of the difficulties there.
It is not in letting the child do what is easy that we educate it. There was nothing more true than what Madame Pestalozzi said, that there is no real education except in overcoming difficulties. There is real education in trying to get the child who has been defeated once or twice to go up to the difficulty again by giving it courage to do so. That is what makes this type of education on occasion very valuable. I am glad that so far as girls are concerned there are not to-day the same objections as confronted us a few years ago from a minority of parents when we were trying to get the girls to take practical tuition. One mother asked that her child should be withdrawn from cookery and laundry work because it would spoil her hands for piano playing. I am not sure that it would have done so, but I imagine that the man to whom that girl is now married would be far more anxious that she should be able to cook than that she should be able to play the piano. That kind of objection which you get to every innovation in school has disappeared now that practical education has become more general.
I would like to say a few words about the physical side of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have been helpful to education authorities in helping them to buy playing-fields. I would ask him whether he cannot go one step further. The hon. and gallant Member for Swindon alluded to the disappearance of playing-fields in Greater London. We are exceedingly grateful to the London County Council for the practical help they are giving in the "green belt" scheme in preserving open spaces in that area. But outside that area the local education authorities sometimes find a district in which development is taking place where it is desirable that a fairly large site should be acquired so that there should be an adequate continuous area for playing-fields. One or two sporadically placed houses on a site can easily spoil it for playing-fields. My authority have such a scheme before the right hon. Gentleman now, and we have been trying to persuade his Department for nearly six months to agree to our buying in anticipation of the requirement that is bound to come. We have had the unfortunate answer that no compulsory order can be granted unless the site is required for building at once. If that attitude is being adopted in developing areas we may get to the position of which the hon. and gallant Member for Swindon complained in other areas, where there is no site when the time comes for erecting a school. I hope the Minister will be rather more kind to us than he has been hitherto.
I hope also that he will see, through his inspectors, that games remain games and do not become a fetish. I think it does a boy of 14 and over no harm to take his share in marking out the cricket pitch, and also in mowing and rolling the pitch. No boy really understands how to play cricket unless he can mark out a pitch himself. I have come across secondary schools where it is held that that task should not be placed on the boy. I believe it is a harmful form of education if that idea is put into the heads of boys. Most of them when they leave school will join clubs where they will have to do some share in the preparation, and it is a good thing that they should. As for rolling the pitch, I have used it alternately as a reward and as a punishment, and even as a combination of the two by saying that it is a punishment to pull the roller and a reward to ride on it in order to put an extra weight on it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, we want the children to enjoy games and not to make the games too much of a drill. I do not go quite as far as he does in thinking that you can remove games entirely from supervision. In the social circumstances of a large number of people the children have to be taught to play games. When they have been taught, the greater amount of freedom we can leave to them the better, and every boy and girl should be fully instructed not merely in the game but in the preparation for the game, and understand all the necessary adjuncts of it. To have taken three days and a half in two weeks for education should at least relieve this House from any complaint there has been in the past that we neglect education. I can only hope that the administration of the Minister during the years he is at the Board of Education will be in accordance with the sound educational policy that he laid down this afternoon.
7.13 p.m.
I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the extension of the senior schools was in full swing. I have had the unfortunate experience almost all my life of teaching in a country school where we had all-age classes. I recognise the futility of trying to teach children from six to nine in one class, and those from 10 to 13 in another class. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the human side of teaching. Man does not live by bread alone, and education does not consist of the three R's alone. Senior schools will allow boys and girls to enter into the realms of art and music and be able to understand them. My education in art and music was sadly neglected, and I envy those people who can take a picture of Raphael and understand and appreciate all its intricate beauties. I envy those people who can listen to and enjoy a Beethoven symphony. I believe that in the senior schools you will be able to do a vast amount of good towards preparing for that leisure time to which the great masses of workers are looking forward.
On the technical side it has long been a motto of school teachers that to learn by doing is perhaps one of the best and easiest ways of learning. So we are introducing the system, of learning by doing, whereby the boys will become practical on the technical side of education, and the girls practical on the domestic side. I do not want that system developed into apprenticeships for the boys or into a preparation for domestic service for the girls. I want it to be a preparation for future leisure and life. On the physical side we have long recognised that body comes before mind. In the old days of teaching, when I was a pupil teacher, we had a system of so-called physical education which consisted almost entirely of military drill. I am glad to say that that has passed away and that we are now taking a more human kind of physical exercises consisting of games.
Something has been said about organising games, and, like other hon. Members, I am a firm believer in free, spontaneous games and in laying upon boys and girls the initiative to organise their own games instead of being subject so much to the supervision of a teacher. In order to have these games we must have decent playgrounds and playing-fields. It will be information for the Minister if I tell him that I have come from a school to the House of Commons where there is no playground for the girls. There has not been one since 1915. In that year the girls' playground was commandeered to make a school garden for emergency food purposes. I was assured then by the Board of Education inspector that immediately the emergency was gone the playground would revert to the girls. It is still a school garden and the girls have no playground. Only recently, we have obtained a playing-field.
Hon. Members who spoke previously have talked about the playing-fields of London and the big towns. It is a remarkable thing that in the country, among the moorlands and hills and fields, we have had the greatest difficulty in the world in getting any playing-fields. The same difficulty was experienced during the War on the allotment question. All the big towns could have allotments, but we in the country districts had to fight for them against the vested and landed interest. Where you have boys or girls whose minds have been warped through the lack of the human parts of education like art, music and literature, where you have boys and girls who have no facilities for playing games and enjoying themselves by that means, you have an important distressed area. If we can do anything in this House to remove from the minds of the people the idea that we have distressed areas only in the industrial field and to let them know that we have distressed areas in the educational field, we shall have done something.
7.20 p.m.
I rather gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that he was inclined to bar technical education. I am afraid that he has taken the term "technical" in a rather harsh industrial sense. I want to put this point to the Minister. If there is anything that must be alarming the people of our generation, it is the apparent loss of the reasoning faculty among the youth of our time. They seem to be incapable of reasoning from A to B and from B to C. That becomes self-evident as one looks at the political development of our time. This inability on the part of many youths to trace cause and effect is a serious matter. I have noticed that when young people and children are accustomed to use their heads and hands in some practical work, and are constantly facing some problem with their hands, it tends to develop their reasoning faculties and makes them on the whole more effective thinkers. We see that if we contrast London with northern communities where men are using their hands and brains all day.
In dealing with my next point it may seem that I am bringing in a matter of personal taste, but I am not. Up and down the country we have what are called schools of art. Thousands of pounds a year are spent on them, and I venture to suggest that if an inspection were made of them it would be found that, with a few exceptions, they are not performing any useful function. Every child has an instinct for drawing. In fact, the average child prefers to do a bit of drawing rather than a bit of counting. All pure and innocent men have artistic tendencies just like children. The more mankind breaks away from the beautiful conceptions of childhood, the more he loses the sense of drawing. There is more in it than meets the eye. It is the appreciation of beauty, the desire to express beauty in an intangible form one way or another. The schools of art are a thing apart. Instead of their being, as it were, part of the ordinary curriculum of the ordinary school life of the child, great expense is incurred in running schools of art as separate institutions. I admit that in many districts changes are being made and that the child is being encouraged to do designs with coloured papers and to try its hand at moulding clay or casting, but that is not enough.
In most schools art education has nothing whatever to do with the art instincts of the child. That is largely due to the way in which the schools of art in this country are run. There is not an activity to which man can lay his hand that does not of necessity involve some sense of beauty or design. In this country we are more backward than any country in the world in design in our industries. The Minister of Education should take a real live interest in the schools of art and bring them within the curriculum of the schools and bring the children in the various schools in contact with them so as to make them feel that the school of art is part of their school and not something separate. Instead of copying lines drawn by the teacher, the children should be left alone and allowed to do their own designs.
When I see some teachers I know that art never entered their souls at any time, and when you put these innocent children under the control of those horrible beings called school teachers to teach them something of the nature of art, the disaster is self-evident. The children should be left alone to do their own designs. I would give children in elementary schools a full hour in the day to draw what they like. Give them their clay to make what they like and their colour chalks to do what they like, and give the teacher an hour's holiday during that period so that the play of the minds of the children can be free.
When the teacher came back he would find that the children had only been drawing caricatures of him.
There is an example of what I have been saying. The interjection comes from a school teacher, and anyone who knows anything about art knows that it is only the caricature that is a work of art which tells the truth. It is alarming, when one looks at the cost of these schools, and the costs of what is called art training from the Royal College of Art downwards, to find that there is no co-relation between the elementary and the advanced courses. I do not care what form of art it is as long as children are left alone to express themselves freely. I hope the Minister will see that the amount of money spent in this form of education is spent in such a way as to get the best of the impulses of the children along these lines.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House is of opinion that a greater degree of technical and physical training should be given to juveniles before leaving school, so that they may be better fitted for the changing conditions of industrial and economic progress."
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether you, Mr. Speaker, would kindly indicate how far it would be possible for hon. Members to deal with important matters connected with this particular railway company which are certainly extraneous to the provisions of this Bill.
This Bill deals with specific things. It is a Bill to empower the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct works and to acquire lands, and to authorise financial arrangements with respect to certain works. Those are the only things which hon. Members may discuss.
May I put this question to you, Sir? Would it be out of order to raise the matter of the excessive hours being worked by certain employés of this company?
The time to discuss that matter is on a General Powers Bill.
Would it be possible for hon. Members to deal with negotiations between the railway trade unions and the railway companies on that point?
No, it would not.
Would it be possible to raise questions concerning the disciplinary machinery?
No, it would not.
Would it be within our province to object to this Bill?
The hon. Member can say that he will not vote for the Bill because the railway has not done things, but if those particular things cannot be put in the Bill, it seems to me rather absurd to object to the whole Bill on that account.
Arising out of that point of Order. In view of the fact that the Bill contains powers to construct certain works which obviously involve the employment of workers, would it be possible to bring under review such employés as may be involved in the construction works in question?
It would be in order to raise questions concerning the employment of men on those particular works, but not the general question of employment on the railway.
7.35 p.m.
I take it that the point I desire to raise this evening is in order in that it arises in connection with a station within the area covered from Euston to Stonebridge Park? The Bill proposes certain works to be carried out within that area, and the point I desire to raise is in connection with the accommodation at the Queen's Park Station. The point is that the company is asking for greater powers and for money for the purpose of carrying out certain improvements. The station I desire to bring to the notice of the House is known as Queen's Park Station, situated in the Kilburn area. It is a station that has been there for a number of years and numerous requests have been made to the company that adequate accommodation should be provided. It is a station from which thousands of people leave each day and at which thousands of people arrive each day. It is covered with a large glass roof, but it has no waiting-room accommodation, nor has it the ordinary conveniences that one expects to find on a railway station. There is no protection whatever from severe weather. As an illustration, hon. Members are all aware of the sort of weather we had last week. I used this station each day last week, and what I am going to say is therefore in keeping with the facts.
Last week I arrived at the station after midnight on three evenings at least. One is taken there by the Bakerloo Line trains and one has to disembark at Queen's Park Station and wait there for trains that may be going to Willesden Junction, or stations beyond that point. In the evenings—one might say mornings when we are past midnight—when one arrives at the station one naturally expects to find some waiting-room accommodation. At Queen's Park Station there is no waiting room accommodation. The ratepayers' associations and residents using the station have repeatedly presented petitions with a view to persuading the London Midland and Scottish Railway to give the necessary accommodation, but up to now nothing has been done. It is true that there is a convenience for men under the stairs, but there are no conveniences whatever for women, although numbers of women have to disembark at the station; and I think we are simply asking for an ordinary measure of accommodation.
It may be argued that there is not a great deal of platform space available. I have taken stock of that, and I find that there is adequate platform space. The company has erected newspaper and tobacco kiosks. I agree that those are sources of revenue, but if it has been possible to erect them, I see no reason whatever, as a practical man, why the company should not provide adequate waiting-room accommodation. In the second place, last week at Kensal Green Station, which I use, and where there are waiting rooms, I found that there were no fires in spite of the cold weather.
I do ask that when the House is conferring about these companies, it should at least exercise a measure of control and see that the statutory undertakings are observed, and that the companies carry out the duties expected of them by ordinary citizens. I would ask that the Minister of Transport should use his good offices with the company in order to get it to meet us with regard to this long-felt want.
I have not noticed that these stations are specifically dealt with in the Bill.
With your permission, Sir, I would point out that in Part II (page 36) of the Bill there is a reference to the conversion of Stonebridge Park (Wembley) Station. Furthermore, from reading the Bill I understand that other improvements are to be carried out along the route to Euston Station.
May I point out that the reference in the Bill is to Stonebridge Park (Wembley) Power Station?
I understand that there are to be improvements in regard to signalling on this line, and I am asking that this station shall be considered when the company is carrying out its work.
Further to that point of Order. In view of the fact that the company is asking for very wide and extended powers both for constructing new works and purchasing land and for entering into all kinds of arrangements and rearrangements for every conceivable thing in the railway world, would it not be permissible for my hon. Friend to suggest to the House that the company is not entitled to these extended powers unless and until it fulfils its statutory duties towards its passengers and customers? From my hon. Friend's observation, I fear that the company has not fulfilled its statutory duty towards the travelling public, and now it is asking for greatly extended powers for all kinds of things. Is not my hon. Friend entitled to ask whether the railway company in question is a fit and proper body to obtain extended powers until it has fulfilled its functions? I think that that point of Order is a very legitimate one, and I would have hoped that my hon. Friend would have been permitted to submit his case, and at least to obtain a reply from the representatives of the railway company in this House.
The hon. Member says that there are numerous things which the railway company is asking to be allowed to do, but that is no reason for bringing forward something which does not appear in the Bill. The only argument put forward is that if the company does not do one little thing, it must not be allowed to do all the other things.
May I point out with great respect, Sir, that this railway company has monopoly powers for certain public services? Having secured statutory powers through this House, if it fails to fulfil its duty to the general public, it is not entitled to ask for and to receive greater powers until it undertakes to fulfil its duty towards the public. I should have thought that on a Bill of this kind such a point might very well have been dealt with.
It has long been a custom of this House to allow that kind of complaint to be made under a General Powers Bill, but not on this sort of Bill, which specifically lays down what things are to be dealt with.
How can we decide whether a railway company is a fit and proper body to have extended powers without discussion of the use they have made of the powers already conferred upon them?
I must explain again that it is on a General Powers Bill that those questions can be raised.
May I call attention to the fact that on page 37 the Bill speaks of the reconstruction and replanning of the London terminus at Euston, and that it goes on to deal with the line between Euston and Willesden, bringing in improvements such as the hon. Member referred to, and there are to be further alterations between Crewe and Euston, which happens to be part of the line to which the hon. Member is referring.
If the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) can assure me that the particular question he is raising could be brought into the Bill, I am willing that he should proceed.
I should not have raised this point had not improvements been anticipated along that part of the railway which passes through the area I have mentioned, and in view of the fact that the company are not doing what they ought to do for the users of that part of the railway I thought it was a legitimate point to raise. I do not desire to prolong the Debate, and I think it would shorten matters if a representative of the railway company who is present were permitted to make a statement.
If the subject dealt with by the hon. Member could be brought into this Bill in the form of an Amendment, I am quite willing that he should raise it.
7.47 p.m.
On that point of Order. I think the improvement of this particular station is not any part of this Bill, although the station is on that section of the line; but it might shorten discussion if I were allowed to inform the hon. Member, although the powers are not in this Bill, that in the ordinary course that station is going to be taken in hand forthwith and the work will, I hope, be completed in a very few months.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting that statement to be made.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Agricultural Marketing
7.48 p.m.
I beg to move, will agree, I feel that the question which forms the subject of this Motion could not possibly be covered in the very short time before us. I think I shall carry the whole House with me in saying that the subject is not only of vital importance to the industry of agriculture but of equal importance to this country as a whole. It is not so very far removed from the subject-matter of the Motion which has already been considered today, because many of the speeches stressed the importance of giving the younger generation every facility for preparing for their lives when they grow up, and that one of the most important factors was proper feeding. I think I shall have the support of all hon. Members in saying that we must all view with the greatest anxiety the steady decline in the agricultural industry in the last 50 years. There is no need to exaggerate the decline in our agriculture in that period. In 1881 there were 1,500,000 people on our soil and they represented 12½ per cent. of the occupied population of Britain. By 1931 that figure of 1,500,000 had dropped to just under 1,200,000, and instead of representing 12½ per cent. of the occupied population it represented 5.7 per cent. In other words, between 1881 and 1931 there has been a decline of 400,000 in the numbers occupied in agriculture; and while that decline has been going on the numbers engaged in industry have increased by 7,300,000. Even more serious is the decline in the number of young men occupied on the soil. Since 1925 there has been a decline of over 30 per cent. in the number of men under 21 who earn their living on the soil.
Judged from every angle, whether it be the number of people occupied on the soil, the productivity of the soil, or the amount of stock carried, we compare very unfavourably with neighbouring countries in Europe, and that despite the fact that our soil and our climate are at least as good as those of any country in Europe, and our market is probably the best in the world. Parallel with that decline since 1881 there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of food in this country. While the land population has been going down, food consumption has been going up, and it is unfortunately true to say that most of that increased demand for food has been met from overseas. It is an even sadder fact that the commodities which we are importing from overseas to-day are the very ones which this country could produce better than any country in the world. I refer to beef and lamb, pig products and dairy products generally. There is no shadow of doubt that we could produce them better than any of our competitors; and, further, if we did produce them here our people would get them in a fresher condition than they do at the moment. That the freshness of food is of vital importance is admitted by all authorities who have gone into the question of the health of our people. There will be general agreement, I think, that an alteration in that state of affairs is vital not only for the agricultural industry but for the country.
The health of our people would improve enormously with a better and more plentiful supply of cheap and fresh food. That can be brought about in two ways: First, we ourselves could to a large extent supply what we to-day take in from abroad; and, secondly, we could increase the consumption of food by the people of this country. With regard to the first proposition, it is sufficient to say that a study of the statistics of food imports will reveal to anybody the possibilities of producing in this country a lot of the food which now comes from abroad. With regard to the second point, the possibilities for a large expansion in the market for British agricultural products are even greater. We are constantly hearing, we heard it this afternoon, of the under-nourishment of our people. It is unfortunately true that a very large proportion of our population is under-nourished. Sir John Orr's name has been referred to many times in Debates on agriculture, but I see no reason why I should not repeat the figure which he gave the other day when he said that in his judgment 4,500,000 of our people spent only 4s. per head per week on food. There are many more who are living on the line which gives them just sufficient to keep themselves alive and no more.
I think we can all agree with the Minister of Agriculture when he says that he is out to get good and cheap food for our people and a decent living for the men on the soil. If I can avoid it, I do not want this Debate to be anything but a non-partisan one, and I must say straight away that a great deal has been done for the agricultural industry in the last few years. Large sums of public money have been expended to assist the industry. The subsidies on sugar, beef, and milk with the wheat payments for last year, are equal to a subsidy of 10s. per acre on the agricultural land of this country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he thinks the improvement in the lot of the producer and the consumer has equalled the expenditure which has been incurred.
There is still a great deal of dissatisfaction among producers. I regret to say that since these schemes have been brought in there has been a further decline of 43,000 in the population finding employment on our soil. I think the producers will continue dissatisfied until another problem in addition to that of production is tackled, and that is the problem of distribution. Let me ask this question first. In view of present-day prices, can anybody suggest that the producer is getting his fair share of the money passing through the food markets? Only a week or two ago we had a strike in Smithfield Market. Without entering into the merits of that dispute in any way I think I am right in saying that the demand of the men was for a minimum wage of £4 a week. I am not entering into the question of whether it was a justifiable demand or not, but it did occur to me that those who were demanding that wage could only get it out of the industry of food, and that it was a significant fact that whereas people at the distributing end were demanding £4 a week the producers of the commodity were getting 30s. a week. I am not going into the merits of one or the other, but there should be enough money in the industry, if it were properly organised, to satisfy both ends.
My criticism of the present scheme is that it stops less than half way to the consumer; and that is where the problem very largely lies. I notice that the Amendment rather infers, by its wording, that I am picking out the retail distributor as responsible, but I can assure hon. Members that nothing of the kind is in my mind. May I refer to a report which was published in 1924? I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to it. It is the Linlithgow Report, and it states that the investigations of the Committee led to the conclusion
My resolution refers to
The same story can be told in regard to beef. A farmer told me that he had two beasts. You could not tell one from the other. Both were the same weight and they went to the same market. There was a week or 10 days between their respective appearances, but the first beast fetched 47s. 6d. and the second beast only 40s. I do not recollect that any great advantage was passed on to the consumer. These cases I have come across personally, and hon. Members will know many others. We have recently had an inquiry. I defy anybody to read the report of the Milk Inquiry and not to support my wording in this Motion. I will give one or two further examples. I understand that a well-known firm of milk distributors refused to make a contract with 65 farmers near London, and went to Appleby for their milk. They had to pay the cost of the transport the whole way to London. In another case, milk was brought from a county in the North West of England. At the very time that milk was coming from that county, another train was taking milk to that county. I should think that was very chaotic.
In the Milk Report we see that the cost of producing a gallon of milk is 9½d. and the cost of distribution is, in London, 11½d., in the Provinces very nearly 11d. and in the rural districts 8¼d. I have a cutting with reference to a town in the North of England and it gives a rough idea of what is going on. It gives a list of the number of milk distributors in various streets. In one street of 200 houses there are 26 distributors of milk and in another street of 150 houses there are also 26 distributors. That is an enormous number of distributors for a small number of houses. Such facts have come out, and nobody, after a study of the report, can say that the system is not costly and chaotic.
May I give an example about vegetables? I know a man who used to sell his cabbages himself and he used to get anything from 1½d. to 2d. for them. Somebody said to him: "Why do you waste your time pushing these cabbages round? Why do you not send them to the market?" He did so. He sent 2,000 cabbages, and he received in return a cheque for just under 10s. There are cases where the producer has been charged the difference between what they fetched and the transport. I have never noticed that these advantages were passed on to the consumer on any occasion. I would refer also to broccoli. I saw recently the result of an investigation in which the costs were allocated in this way: Growing, cutting, packing, carriage and commission. I was interested to see that for growing they took 32 per cent., for packing 21 per cent. and for carriage and commission 47 per cent. That case has been investigated in all its details. One could go on all night, if necessary, with such examples, as any hon. Member knows who represents an agricultural constituency. All you have to do is to pick up any provincial newspaper to see for yourself the position of the agricultural population.
Take marketing. That could be very much better organised. I do not want at the moment to go into the question of ownership, but so far as I can see all the receipts go into relief of rates and into profit for private individuals, while nothing goes to the benefit of agriculture. Secondly, I think markets could be better situated. I would quote the following, again from the Linlithgow Report:
It should be possible so to organise our markets that they would cater for their own districts, after studying what service is required. There is no reason that I can see why markets should not have an approximate idea of what the requirements would be next day. They should have a list of the producers in the district, who could be informed what they were expected to have ready next day. The transport should be so organised that even the smallest farmer could be economically brought in. Such organisation does not seem impossible, and it would effect a very great saving. On some days there is a glut and on others there is scarcity, but all we know is that when there is a glut the producer suffers. I have yet to learn that the consumer ever gains. As things are run to-day in respect of marketing, farming is not a business; it is a gamble.
I ask the Government to tackle this question as a whole. Marketing schemes stop too soon, and I do not see how either producer or consumer can be satisfied. The treatment of agriculture in this House is a little too piecemeal. At one moment we are dealing with wheat, at another with milk, then with sugar and then with beef. The result is serious unbalance in agriculture. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) has asked on several occasions whether the Government would be prepared to institute a real inquiry either through a commission or in some other way into the whole question of distribution. The last answer he received from the Prime Minister was that the Prime Minister did not see the necessity for such an inquiry as the facts were known to those who wanted to know them. Is it really so? The only chance the public of this country has had of getting the facts clearly known has been the recent Milk Inquiry. There they have had an opportunity of learning a good deal that was not known before. I would ask the Minister whether it would be possible to apply that to other commodities which are marketed in this country.
This industry is not only vital, but its revival is vital to the country as a whole. In a very short time we shall discuss the expenditure of a large sum of money on defence. Discussions are, I suppose, going on as to the best way of allocating whatever sum has been decided upon, and some Members are wanting cruisers and others are wanting bombers. It is always the same. May I remind the House that discussions of this character took place before the last War, and that the one weapon which was least discussed was the one that nearly defeated this country? It created a serious possibility of a shortage in our food supplies; at any rate, it put us in a very serious situation. Who knows what will happen next time? This country is an island, and, because of that fact, we are exposed to danger as long as our supplies come in from overseas; and we can be sure that our foes will see to it that our weakest point is their point of concentration. We have three arms of defence, the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. I would ask the Government whether they do not consider that it would be to the advantage of this country to add agriculture as a fourth. If by tackling that problem they can revive this great industry, they will not only add enormously to the strength of our defences, but they will make a very great contribution towards the restoration of prosperity to this country, towards giving our people a higher standard of living and a very much better standard of health.
8.17 p.m.
I beg to second the Motion.
I want to thank my hon. and gallant Friend sincerely for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the country. The question is one which concerns a great body of farmers and a great body of consumers. I have recently met more than one consumer—townsmen—who have been listening to that very popular item in the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme, the Fat Stock Prices, and have asked me what is the meaning of those prices. To-day there is a real demand to know why, when fat cows can be sold at 2d. a 1b. live weight by the farmer, such prices are so far different from anything that is to be seen on the butcher's counter. I do not wish to suggest that there is profiteering on the part of any section, but I do suggest that there is room for very serious inquiry into the conditions which make this state of affairs possible.
We quite recognise that there are difficulties on all sides—that the consumer demands a very high degree of service in these days, that the distributor has to supply that service, and that the farmer, on his side, has not in the past been very ready to organise his sales as efficiently as some of his competitors. I have recently come to live in London, and I realise that, if my wife prefers now to buy her potatoes delivered at the door by the pound, she will have to pay, perhaps, three times as much as I in the past have been able to charge her for potatoes sold by the hundredweight on the farm; but the fact remains that there is an enormous margin between the prices that the farmer gets wholesale and the price that the consumer pays.
One of the tragedies of British farming is that, in those days which were more prosperous than the present, the British farmer did not take the opportunity of organising his own voluntary system of distribution. I recollect being in Sweden several years ago, and looking into the distribution of milk in that country. The farmers there had built up their own organisation for the wholesale distribution of their milk, and, when it happened that they fell out with the retail distributors in their large cities, their organisation was so efficient that they were able to solve the dispute by the farmers' organisation taking over the distributive businesses at a fair and reasonable price and doing the distribution themselves. I am not suggesting that that is the solution of our present difficulties with regard to milk, but if an organisation has been built up which is able to compete on level terms with the existing organisation, the producer is in a strong position to develop and increase his distributive organisation as circumstances demand.
All of us, I think, wish the marketing schemes success. I listened with great interest the other day to a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) in which he said that the object of the milk scheme had been to give the farmer that bargaining power which the individual farmer, or even the Farmers' Union, could never have. I, for one, welcome the organisation of producers, because the farmer is face to face, in all his business transactions to-day, with very highly organised interests. When he sells his milk, he sells it to a few large companies; when he buys his fertilisers, he buys them at prices which are fixed by one or two combines; his wages are fixed by statute. On all sides he is hemmed in. But unfortunately, so far, while the marketing schemes have given the farmer that bargaining power which he requires, they have not tackled the more difficult and perhaps more urgent problem of reducing inefficiency, and thereby reducing the cost of production. In fact, as far as I see the situation, the position is worse than it was before. The milk distributor has had two great advantages from the milk scheme. He has had undercutting made impossible, and he has also had the surplus taken off his hands. I well remember that in my part of the country, the year before the scheme came in, the walls were plastered with placards:
Where is the farmer getting 6d. a gallon to-day?
The farmers in the North of England get approximately that figure in the summe—
And the consumer is paying 7d. a quart now.
With the fall in prices the problem has become more acute than it was before, because, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, the average price that the farmer receives is 9d., which is lower than it was before the scheme came into force. That is due, no doubt, to other factors—
The price paid by the retailer to the farmer at the present time is 1s. 5d. a gallon.
Before deductions.
Is the hon. Member aware that that is the actual price paid by the retailer?
I do not wish to go into the great technical difficulties of how the pool price under the Milk Marketing Scheme works. I will if it is required, but I think I should be wasting the time of the House. The price that the farmer gets for his milk is lower, but such overhead charges as distribution remain the same. If you deliver an empty milk bottle at the door it costs you the same to-day as it would have cost four or five years ago, but the proportion that those overhead costs now represents is greater than it was when the wholesale price of milk was higher. Therefore, the problem is aggravated by the general fall in prices. The same, I think, is true of the bacon scheme. I do not believe that we have yet reached anything like the efficiency in that scheme that some of our competitors have arrived at. I cannot give precise figures, but the cost of getting a bacon pig from its farm in Denmark to the grocer in London is far less to-day than it is for getting a British pig from its farm to the grocer. The position in Denmark, I believe, is that the actual cost of curing is covered by the sale of offals. I believe that fundamentally the interests of the consumer and the food producer, in which I include the agricultural worker and the farmer, are at one and I therefore welcome the principle that consumers should have some greater representation in any organisation which may come into being to make distribution more efficient.
In the last year or two we have often heard of the long-term policy of the Minister of Agriculture. Sometimes I think a better name for it would be the long delayed policy. I want to bring this consideration to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. While the fortunes of the farmworker and the farmer are all important at the moment, the final and fundamental question which should be considered in working out any long-term policy is not what benefits them but what benefits the land. The land is a permanent asset and, unlike some assets, it is not a wasting asset. On the contrary, a policy which would increase the fertility of the land is of cumulative benefit to the country. I believe that if the farmer grows a good crop, whatever it is, it contributes more wealth to the country than a bad crop, whatever the bad crop is, and that wealth is finally measured in goods and not in money. I am very conscious, from such experience as I have had personally, that if you are going to get this type of intensive farming which is going to make the most of the land you have to have stable conditions without the gamble that my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out. At present the difference between, say, a good bunch of lambs which you may take into the market and a bad bunch may be entirely wiped out by your lucky or unlucky position in the market itself. That type of gamble militates against intensive good farming. What is needed to encourage the food producer to raise the standard of his produce and to give a consistent supply of that produce is a regular system of marketing which will get that produce into the hands of the consumer. There is a phrase that I have come across which I think is apposite:
8.32 p.m.
I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from "land" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"while safeguarding the interests of the public and ensuring the fullest measure of co-operation with, and assistance to, the retail distributors who are essential to the well-being of the community."
I want to say with how much pleasure we all listened to the two extremely interesting speeches that we have heard. I want to associate myself with much that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) said. I think the Government will have listened to his speech with considerable interest and satisfaction particularly as during the last Parliament when they were evolving their policy, which has I consider alone made this Debate possible, I rather thought his attitude towards them was slightly different. I do not want to make a party point, but to get the hon. and gallant Gentleman's testimony that a great deal has been done for industry in the past few years is extremely satisfactory, particularly coming from one who has been an opponent on general grounds of the safeguarding policy of the Government.
What I said had nothing whatever to do with distribution. I simply said I acknowledged that they had done a good deal to assist the producer.
At the same time the Motion refers to the prosperity of British agriculture. In my view, and in that of many Members on this side, had it not been for the active policy of the Government there would be no question of discussing prosperity and greater production. The industry would be in such a condition that prosperity would not exist. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's speeches are always extremely interesting and, whether one agrees with them or not, one listens with respect. I do not quite know what led him, in drafting his Motion, to put down words which I think are extravagant and far too strong. It is because we do not agree that the distributive industry of this country is chaotic and costly that my hon. and gallant Friend and I have put down this Amendment, and we hope that the House will accept it. I cannot help feeling that my hon. and gallant Friend, fortified now by the excellent organisation of supplies of British agricultural produce in the House of Commons dining room, will realise that his is a somewhat harsh proposition and will support my Amendment.
I must make some apology for intervening in an agricultural debate. There is not a farmer in my constituency, and in regard to our few remaining open spaces, including our playgrounds, which we were discussing in the House a short time ago, the House to-day has just given a Second Reading to a Bill which seems designed to transform them as soon, as possible into motor speedways. Nevertheless, important debates should not be confined to Members representing one particular type of constituency, and I speak as one representing a large number of consumers. There is always at tendency, whenever questions of cost arise, for everyone to blame the middleman. I wonder whether it is really justified? I often feel that much of this criticism is ill-directed. Somebody has to do the work of distribution and someone has to pay for the services which the community demands. My business activities have been entirely on the other side as a manufacturer in various industries, but I have always found on the whole that the retailer or distributor was efficient and that he knew his job, and that unless he did he very soon went out of business.
This Debate raises the very wide issue from the agricultural point of view of that which we hear so much about, namely, planning. In many quarters, both on the opposite side of the House and on this, it is a popular theme; it is awfully easy sometimes to make plans, but they do not always work out. I agree that in theory you may be able sometimes to sell things a little cheaper, though often, if the plan goes wrong, you have to pay the penalty. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), and I seem to remember him saying, both now and on another occasion, something about the difficulties of farmers in having to pay fixed prices for certain of their commodities, particularly fertilisers. If ever there was an industry that was highly organised and planned, surely it is the industry carried on by people like Imperial Chemical Industries, who supply fertilisers. I am not always sure that the consumer is the person who invariably benefits. Imagine a condition when everyone was eating and drinking planned commodities; it would not altogether please the people of this country. I believe that the average person in this country, man, woman, Englishman, Scotsman, and, I think, Welshman too, is still something of an individualist.
On the widest grounds I deplore the reduction and elimination of the small shopkeeper and private trader. I believe that working in business on one's own account develops certain qualities which are lacking in people, who, however important and desirable their functions may be, are, nevertheless, simply cogs in some vast distributive machine. I want particularly to emphasise the services which the small retail trader is giving to the community at present. In handling our agricultural produce, among other things there are to-day something like 750,000 separate retail shops in the country, and of these 10 per cent. belong to chain stores, including co-operative societies, leaving between 80 and 90 per cent. of independent shops of the retail type. Of this total, departmental stores account for between 5 and 7 per cent., co-operative societies between 12 and 15 per cent., multiple organisations between 15 and 20 per cent., leaving the huge total of between 50 and 60 per cent. of the retail trade of the country still being done by the small independent trader. Many people in this country buy in very small quantities indeed, and these may best be served by shops and organisations of that character.
You can buy small amounts in large shops?
I agree, but the individual shopper, whether man or woman, very often obtains a more personal and individual type of service from the smaller shop, but obviously that is a matter of opinion. Under the British system the smaller unit has a definite place and fulfils an essential purpose. Fortunately, under the Government marketing schemes the small traders are being catered for, and on those particular grounds, I think that the schemes have been well and carefully drawn up. I also emphasise the value of the small trader on general social grounds. He is a man who contributes proportionately very heavily in the payment of rates and taxes. He is not one of those people who were derated; he still has to bear his full burden of rating. Usually you find him a good citizen, living in the district, spending his money and frequently taking an active part in local affairs. His usefulness does not begin as a vendor of goods, but you find him very often helping in all kinds of social and philanthropic organisations. When people criticise the distributive system in Great Britain, I feel that they often under-estimate the discrimination of the average British housewife. Millions of transactions take place daily which give mutual satisfaction to both buyer and seller. We live in densely populated areas, and good facilities are of the utmost importance. It is very rare indeed that you find a shortage of supplies in the retail shops, and as far as I am aware there is no chaos in retail distribution. We find new areas springing up all over the country, and in almost every case the man who pioneers the way is the small trader, and only too often it is the larger organisation which comes later on and reaps the benefits of a great deal of the hard spade work which has been done by the small man.
All through these difficult years the distributive trades have given a remarkably high proportion of employment. There are something like 2,000,000 people employed in these industries, and the average amount of unemployment compares very favourably with unemployment in industry and trade as a whole. We must not under-estimate the importance the retailer plays very often in creating a market. It is easy to talk about gluts and so on, but let us not forget that very often when a glut occurs or when there may not be the demand for goods which the retailer expects, the retailer has to bear the brunt of the loss.
We have seen examples of large-scale organisation of agricultural products in other countries. In the years before the slump we saw in the United States great material prosperity in industry and I cannot help thinking that in the pursuit of that material prosperity much was lost sight of which became apparent in the slump years that followed. Take the position of the country which has organised agriculture and other commodities on the greatest scale, Russia. I remember, two years ago, speaking in Moscow with a foreign observer, very friendly to the existing regime in Russia, who had been there for a great number of years, and he gave me his considered opinion that in Russia there was a 30 per cent. wastage in the distribution of food supplies, and in some cases in regard to perishable commodities the wastage rose as high as 75 per cent. I am not making this point against Russia because it has a different political system from that in which I believe, but I quote it as showing the difficulty of making a complete success of planned organisation.
I do not want to claim perfection for the distributing industry in regard to agricultural products in this country, but we do compare favourably with other countries in this respect. The Government should give the maximum amount of co-operation, as I am confident it does, to chambers of commerce and other organisations of the distributing trades. I hope the House will support my Amendment. It is not a destructive Amendment. It accepts the major part of the Motion, so ably moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), but it cuts out what I regard as being unfair and unjustifiable criticism of the retail trade and the shopkeepers.
I have made it clear that there is no intention whatsoever in the Motion to make any reflection on the retail trade, and I cannot allow the hon. Member, for the second time, to refer to the Motion as an attack on the retail trade.
The terms of the Motion and the terms of the Amendment are before the House, and every hon. Member is perfectly entitled to put what construction seems to him correct upon them. I shall be quite happy to accept the verdict of the House on a Division.
On a point of Order. I have been trying to understand where the Amendment comes in and to fix it on to line 5 of the Motion, to which it refers, but I am unable to find the word "land" in line 5 of the Motion. I therefore suggest that the Amendment is out of order.
The hon. Member has not noticed that the Motion itself starts on the first line, and that the word "land" comes on the fifth line.
8.50 p.m.
I beg to second the Amendment.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) had no intention of attacking the small traders in his Motion, but the Motion might be read in that way. Therefore, we felt that we should make it perfectly clear not merely in Debate but on the Order Paper that the retailer, the small man, is not being prejudiced in any way by any Resolution that we may pass. I should like to make one small proviso about myself, because the Proposer of the Amendment accepts the first part of the Motion. I do so with some diffidence. One part of the Motion says that it is essential in the interests of the prosperity of agriculture to do this, that and the other in regard to supply and transport. I should have thought that it was more essential to have a sound agricultural policy before you go into organisation in detail as to transport. That must be secondary to a sound policy. Therefore, I can hardly say that it is essential for agriculture that transport should be organised at once. It is more essential that as regards any marketing schemes we have already in existence we should overhaul them and see whether they are failing. Certainly, I could hardly say that all the marketing schemes that already exist are working as smoothly as we would like.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) pointed out how badly the pig marketing scheme works and how transport charges were giving the bacon curers abroad an advantage. That is not due to lack of organisation, but to lack of appreciation on the part of the farmer that it is his duty to produce a standard quality. It is not lack of transport organisation but lack of education and of appreciation on the part of the farmer as to the necessity of producing standard qualities. The hon. Member who moved the Motion complained of chaotic conditions in the milk industry and also of the transport in that industry. He was quoting a bad example of chaotic conditions and of transport difficulties because that is a branch of agriculture which has already been organised under a marketing scheme, and the private supplier of milk is rapidly being organised out of business. I think that we should go slow in regard to these marketing schemes at the present time.
It is a perfect fallacy to think that there is a fortune to be made in cutting down the middleman's charges. Sometimes fortunes are made by middlemen but very heavy losses are also made. I know some of the reasons why retail charges have to go up. The distributor on a large scale has to have a large supply of cold storage and other organisation, which all costs money, and it means that the retail price has to rise. We may take it for granted that if the co-operative societies thought that there were huge fortunes to be made by the middleman in regard to agricultural or other products, they would cut their prices to show the wickedness of the small retail trader. But they do not cut their prices unnecessarily. The fact that the co-operative organisations do not find such vast profits in the middleman's charges disposes of the illusion that if people go into that trade they are going to find a huge mint of money. We ought to disabuse ourselves of the idea that if the farmer wants to sell and to transport his own produce he will gain much more money and that the consumer will gain. He may make more money but possibly he will make heavy losses.
In the North our trade is largely done through the efforts of these small traders, who render a very distinct service to the community. When a new housing estate is being developed the small man goes there and stands a great risk of a multiple shop later on coming along and undercutting him. In so doing that small man is rendering a great service to the community. The same thing happens in our agricultural areas. You get the small man going up the valleys with a horse and cart, later on changing to a motor car, and then the co-operative society comes along. Surely these men are all rendering a useful service to the community. If this were not the case you would have one great big concern monopolising the whole of the trade, which would not be to the advantage of the consumer or producer. From the farmer's point of view it is as well that there are some of these small traders buying his produce, because the more buyers there are for his produce the better the price he is able to get.
The hon. and gallant Member does not confine this to the produce of the farmer?
In the North of England you get the small grocer or shopkeeper who has a motor car going up the valleys buying the produce of the farmers and then disposing of it in his shop.
Can the hon. and gallant Member defend that as an economic way of distributing agricultural produce?
As it so happens it is the only possible way in these valleys. If there was a better way it would have been found. These men are rendering good service to the farming community. They buy the produce and thus provide the farmer with funds for feeding stuffs. They are a channel by which the farmer is able to sell his produce. It is a great mistake to think that by going in for large-scale organisation you are going to help the farmers or the consumers, or that you will give the same service to the community which these small individual traders are giving at the moment. I suggest that it is important to encourage these small traders. They are the channels by which the produce of agriculture is conveyed from the farms into the towns. The goods are not put into storage but go at once into consumption. I think it is better in some cases to have a slightly lower price for the produce if it is going at once into consumption. One of the biggest lessons we can learn is that provided by the experience in Canada and the United States. There have been hold-ups on a large scale of wheat when the price was low in order to sell it when the price was higher. A great cloud hung over the market; in the end it burst and farmers were almost ruined. It is of the utmost importance that we should not encourage the storing up of vast quantities of produce. Far better that it should go direct into consumption. The Amendment deals with a class of individual who has been neglected. It is a struggling class and open to great competition. I hope that the House will support the Amendment and thus show that the efforts of these people are appreciated.
9.1 p.m.
Quite frankly the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have not made out a case to which any reply is necessary. Indeed, the Mover of the Amendment made an admission which stultifies the whole of his case. He said that 60 per cent. of the retail distributors of this country were small men. His Amendment says:
"while safeguarding the interests of the public and ensuring the fullest measure of co-operation with, and assistance to, the retail distributors who are essential to the well-being of the community."
We should have heard from the hon. Member what sort of co-operation we are likely to have with 60 per cent. of the distributing trade in the hands of small traders. How can you co-operate with them? What sort of business organisation can you have? The hon. Member referred to the chamber of trade. They have nothing to do with the organisation of the retail industry.
Surely a large number of distributing traders are able to organise themselves quite as effectively through chambers of commerce as a large number of trade unionists are able to organise themselves in a trade union?
The sole purpose of chambers of trade is to organise the retail distributors.
Not to organise retail distributors for distributive purposes.
Oh, yes.
The hon. Member knows that that is not correct.
I am a. vice-president of two or three and I know that that is exactly the job they have to do.
When a chamber of trade tries to organise the distributive business of its members they cease to become individual distributors and become part of the corporation. The purpose of chambers of trade is largely protective. They do not interfere in the number of shops or the number of shop assistants, or in the management of the business. They are a self-protective organisation, and it is not doing justice to the House for hon. Members to suggest that we can by co-operation with chambers of trade impinge on the distributive system at all.
The hon. Member destroyed his case when he pointed out that 60 per cent. of the distributive work of Great Britain was done by small retail businesses. No Minister, no Government could possibly organise that lot into a coherent system of distribution. Immediately you started to organise them, you would realise that large numbers of them were redundant. That is the first conclusion you would reach. The amount of economic confusion and futility that society has had to suffer, in consequence of the chaos in the retail trade, cannot be estimated but we do know this—that during the years of the slump, by some queer process, while wholesale prices fell, retail prices remained fixed all the time. One of the main reasons why the slump became intensified was the fact that the fall in retail prices did not bring about a proper degree of equilibrium between the producer and consumer and one reason advanced by economists for that situation was that the retail trades had by all kinds of tacit understandings succeeded in preventing retail prices from being reduced.
An extraordinary feature of retail trading in most of our provincial towns is that despite the terrific fall in wholesale prices it is impossible to buy a joint of meat at less than 1s. 6d. or 1s. 8d. per lb. Although the farmers are complaining all the time and deputations are waiting on the Ministry of Agriculture and the newspapers are full of stories about the great fall in the price of cattle, it is impossible to get any reduction in the price of English meat in our shops. Why is it the case? Because there has grown up in the last 20 or 30 years a vast horde of unnecessary distributors. I would like to say this. I cannot, for the moment, see how the marketing of agricultural products is to be taken out of the general distributive system. I cannot see how it is possible to have an organisation for the marketing of agricultural produce alone. It seems to me that agricultural produce has to go into the general distributive system and if you are going to give any benefit to agriculture by reorganising distribution, you will have to reorganise the whole of your distribution. Hon. Members on this side believe that you would require to have some form of collectivisation in the distributive industry in order to deal with the chaos which at present exists.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) drew attention to the large number of retailers in connection with the agricultural industry and the same thing is true of coal. Various inquiries have been held which showed that the price of coal is unduly high because of the existence of a great army of distributors. Any inquiry into the distributive industry generally, will show that the same thing is true of every department of it. Hon. Members defend the shopkeeper on the ground that the shopkeeper works hard. But that is no answer. The burglar works hard. It is no answer to say that the shopkeepers are decent people. Of course they are decent people. Nobody is attacking them for being indecent. All we say is that they are economically obsolescent, and that the price of commodities is kept unduly high because we have to maintain this army of unnecessary persons all running round the same street. I assure the Mover of the Amendment that many of us came into the House this evening hoping to hear a considered defence of the present distributive system. We have heard nothing of the kind. All we have heard is, "We know that there is anarchy and chaos; we know there are large numbers of shops everywhere but it is a good thing that they should be there and we hope they will continue to be there." I hope, if hon. Members make any further attempt to defend this Amendment, we shall hear a more substantial defence than that which has been offered up to the present.
9.11 p.m.
I find myself in almost complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) and I should like to congratulate him on having brought this important Motion before the House and on the clarity of his statement. The Mover of the Amendment began by doubting the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend that the state of things in agricultural marketing was chaotic and costly. I was prepared to listen to the hon. Member until he said that there was not a farmer in his constituency and that he himself was a manufacturer. Those of us who have had experience of agriculture, who have been brought up among farmers, realise that the present system is chaotic and costly.
There has been a great improvement since the old days, as a result of the establishment of the Smithfield system. I wonder whether any hon. Members have ever had the experience which I have had of taking cattle, sheep or pigs down to a market in the morning and standing alongside them until a buyer came along and made an offer. Sometimes in the course of the afternoon a buyer would turn up and you were very glad to see him because the next day was rent day and unless you were able to make a sale your outlook was pretty black. The Smithfield system has been a great improvement because, under it, you have open bidding and it is possible to get some idea of the market price. To my mind it is time for us to reconsider our position with regard to Smithfield.
Take the case of my own constituency. There are three large markets on the borders of Montgomeryshire and Shropshire—Welshpool and Newtown, both in Montgomeryshire, and, what is perhaps the main market, Oswestry which is just over the border. The auctioneer who does his best to sell the goods and to attract buyers, has no idea, for instance, in Welshpool on a Monday morning, what stock is coming down or what buyers are going to be there. He may find that comparatively little stock has come down but that the buyers have had wires from Birmingham, Wolverhampton or Manchester telling them to buy. Supply and demand always govern the, market price and if the supply is insufficient to meet the demand the buyers bid against one another and sheep go up in price by 1s. or 2s. 6d. News travels quickly among us farmers and on Wednesday which is market day at Oswestry the market is flooded but there are few buyers. What happens as a general rule? The farmers let the stock go, rather than be at the expense of taking the animals back to the farm. The beasts are not so good if, after having travelled a number of miles to market they have to be brought back again from the din of the market to the fields. They ought to go straight away to the butcher. That is a state of things which I call chaotic and which is certainly costly.
My hon. and gallant Friend and also the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) have pointed out that when prices are down the consumer seems never to get the benefit, yet when prices go up the consumer is sure to suffer. That is a state of things which ought not to continue now, and I hope the Government are going, in their long deferred scheme, to consider all these problems. Undoubtedly the farmer has benefited from the schemes which have been put forward already—the milk scheme, the potato scheme, the bacon scheme, the wheat subsidy, the sugar beet subsidy—but at present there is no cohesion. It is all unbalanced. The farmer in this country as a general rule is not farming for a particular commodity. As a general rule, he is a general farmer, who raises cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry, and if you make a special benefit for one particular branch of his work, the tendency will be for all of them to concentrate upon that branch. That is exactly what is happening with regard to milk. When you have your milk scheme working, the farmer sees a hope at last of getting a steady price for his milk, and another attraction for him is that he gets ready money for it.
We all know that the farmer is generous. You can go to him, and his house is an open house. You can stay as long as you like, and he never grumbles. The one thing he has never got is ready cash. He has to sell something before he gets his cash, and as a general rule, when that cash comes it is mortgaged, either for rent or for bills owing, and it has been a real comfort to him to know that he is getting his monthly cheque for milk. What is the result? Farmers are turning their attention more and more to dairy cattle, and in my part of the country, as a result of that and of the beef subsidy, and of the right which the beef people are exercising of taking stores from Ireland or Canada, the store cattle in my part of the country are very cheap. That kind of thing will happen unless you get a completely balanced system. It is no good going for one thing at a time; you have to consider the plan as a whole. Undoubtedly there is much work to be done in planning.
There is also much to be done on the farmers' side in getting standardisation. The real master of the farmer, the real master of us all, for that matter, is the housewife, and she wants to know from day to day the exact quality of the goods that she is ordering. If she knows that and can trust it, she will buy, even if the price is a little higher, so long as the standard is good. We want a standard in the agricultural industry, and I do not see any reason why we should not attain it. We can attain it with regard to milk and milk products, like butter and cheese. We can also attain it with regard to beef, and I should like to see the time come when the farmer, instead of sending his fat sheep and lambs, his bullocks and young heifers to the market, can send them direct to the abattoir, where they will be graded properly and when the cheque will come back direct to the farmer, without all these expenses that he now has to bear. All of us would benefit. The consumers certainly would.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke when he said that there is no country that can provide the food that this country can, and it is unfair that the farmer should be suffering as he is at the present time. The amount of difference between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays is appalling. I have heard several figures stated. I have heard the figure put at as low as £200,000,000 a year and as high as something between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000 a year. That is too much at the present moment for the consumer to have to pay and at the same time for the farmer to suffer. I hope that we shall hear from the Government that they are going to consider all these matters, and that we shall have a complete marketing scheme and better standardisation, and then I shall begin to hope for agriculture-in this country.
9.20 p.m.
I think we are all indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) for the Motion which he has put forward this, evening, and I hope it means that he and all his party are going to support us in endeavouring to restore agriculture once more. It is only a short time since I first came to this House, and I remember being rather damped at that time by hearing a speech from those benches by Sir Herbert Samuel on the question of Empire Free Trade as affecting agriculture. He only devoted one sentence in that speech to British agriculture. Times have now changed, and I hope that to-night is a good omen for that change. Last week the Minister of Agriculture defined the objective of our agricultural policy as:
How are we going to achieve the objects at which we are now aiming? How are we going to bring prosperity back to the land? How are we going to gain the maximum amount of fertility for the soil and the maximum employment, and at the same time produce food cheap enough for the population of this country to buy? I think great credit is due to the Government for what they have already done, but the most important step that they took was when they persuaded the producers to get together and to set up marketing boards. That, I think, has proved the greatest success of any scheme that has been attempted, and when I hear discussions as to whether these boards are working out and are successful, or whether they should be discarded, I am amazed, because, as one who is farming a certain portion of land myself, I am convinced that there would be chaos in the agricultural industry if we allowed the boards to be discarded. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has just stated, we have to compete to-day, not only in price, but in quality as well, and I think that fact is very often ignored. It is not enough that goods should be freshly produced on the farm. There are goods that can come in from abroad, such as chilled Argentine beef and bacon from Denmark, which are just as good as the goods produced on the spot. The consumer wants unvarying good quality, in order to obtain which there must be some funnel through which the farm produce passes in order to achieve standardisation, and that, it seems to me, is the chief function of the marketing boards.
The boards themselves have been faced with great difficulties, and largely through no fault of their own. One of their chief difficulties was the delay of the Government in making up their mind which policy to pursue, that of a levy scheme or an earmarked tariff or keeping on with the old system of quotas. Meanwhile livestock was left unprotected, and that in turn threw out of proper balance the other branches of the industry. Livestock I believe to be the real keystone of British agriculture and until it becomes prosperous once more there will be no general stability throughout the industry. I hope that this fact will be remembered when the Argentine Agreements come up for revision in the near future. I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be too influenced by the fact that a very large debt is owed to us by the Argentine. An old business firm may have been paying dividends regularly for a great many years, but there comes a time, owing to a change in habit, when it may have to write down its capital and adjust its business. The Argentine debt to us is a parallel case to that. We must surely consider our home production and our Empire production rather than be fettered by an interest out of which we may have already derived the maximum advantage.
I would like to make one other point in regard to milk. The Milk Marketing Board has done much in the face of great difficulties. Its terms of reference were that it should take all the milk that the producers wished to contract for. In addition, the chaotic state of the livestock industry has brought a great many meat producers into the field, and that has swollen the amount of milk. More people must be persuaded to drink more milk. There are three means of achieving this end. First, by selling milk more cheaply, because there are many people to-day throughout the country who simply cannot afford to pay for milk at its present price. Yet the producer—I can say that this is a fact as a producer myself—is only just getting, if at all, a return on his money. He is certainly not getting any return on the investment he has made. That raises the question of distribution. Surely this needs careful watching. We know that there is a committee sitting at the present time, and we have seen some of the evidence which has been submitted to it. I hope that if it is proved that the processing and distributing costs can be narrowed down, then that will be done, and milk will be sold more cheaply to the consumer and so increase the amount of liquid milk which is consumed.
The next thing that can be done is to educate people in the advantages of milk drinking. The Debate on Monday went so fully into that subject that I need say nothing about it at the present time. My third point is in regard to advertising. Although a certain sum is being spent on advertising I do not think that the sum allocated to the Milk Board is nearly sufficient. I do not think that we are as a whole a milk-drinking country, and if we are to change to a milk-drinking people it must be done by mass advertising in order to "put it across." Compare the good results that were achieved by the signboards boosting the National Government all over the country. Let us try the same thing with milk, because in both cases they are thoroughly worthy subjects.
In conclusion I would like to say this. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) has linked agriculture with the three defence forces, and defence is going to be the main topic of discussion in the next few weeks. I am absolutely in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member. We can go ahead in this country and produce a great deal more food, we can employ a great many more people on the land. The agriculturists are willing to go ahead if they can be confident about the future. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to-night will give us some confidence about that.
9.34 p.m.
The hon. Member who has just sat down proved that it is possible to sell almost anything by a successful advertising campaign. But I should like to join with him in expressing our gratitude to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) for raising this subject to-night. The decline in recent years in the influence of the private Member of this House has been due not only to the tightening up of procedure but at any rate in some degree to the failure of private Members to make the best use of the time available to them. That reproach cannot be levelled against my hon. and gallant Friend this evening.
We have now had three or four years' experience of agricultural marketing organised under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. Those Acts made a completely new departure. I do not think that there was any precedent for the powers and duties which were entrusted to the Marketing Boards and it is quite inevitable when we make a departure of this kind that we should proceed by a process of trial and error. In one case in which I aim particularly interested, the Scottish Milk Marketing scheme, it was necessary for the Secretary of State within about 12 months of the scheme coming into operation to make drastic alterations to the framework of the scheme. I hope the Government will realise that all these schemes are still in the experimental stage, and that they will be ready in the light of experience not only to amend the schemes as occasion may require, but, if necessary, to amend the Agricultural Marketing Acts.
I think that the House is unanimous in wanting to see the ends suggested in the Motion brought about, but a good many of us are exceedingly doubtful how far those aims are being achieved by the marketing schemes which are now in force. May I give the House an example from actual experience. I represent a constituency in the east of Scotland. It may be that in that part of the country we have been exceptionally unfortunate. At any rate, I think it will be generally agreed that the Scottish Milk Marketing scheme has worked considerably worse than any other scheme. That is the opinion of all producers in the east of Scotland. The effect of the scheme has been to divide the producers into two hostile camps—the level producers of the east against the seasonal producers of the west.
It is inevitable, I suppose, that, where there is a standard price paid by a marketing board for milk, irrespective of whether it goes for a liquid market or for manufacture, the level producers in those circumstances must be subsidising those who produce milk for making cheese. That must happen under any scheme of this kind. This subsidy from the level producers is not only paid in the case of seasonal producers who sell their milk to the board in order afterwards to be made cheese, but it is also true where the farmer, under the aegis of the board, makes his own milk into cheese. In that case in Scotland he gets the full price, less the levy, plus 1d. for manufacturing; he is also able to keep the whey, which is worth Id. a gallon to him. In Scotland the price of milk for manufacture is only 6d. a gallon, but the pool price is 1s. 3d., less a levy of 2¾d. These are the January prices. The fact is that the level producers, in spite of the fact that their costs of production are higher have to carry the seasonal producers on their backs. That may be the inevitable result of any milk marketing scheme, and it may be a tolerable position where there is a majority of level producers carrying the minority. The position we have had in Scotland has been the other way round. The seasonal producers have actually been in the majority, and so the minority have had to carry a considerable majority on their backs. It has been found in Scotland that that is simply an intolerable situation.
These Agricultural Marketing Acts introduced into the organisation of agriculture for the first time the principle of coercion. The intention of the Acts was that farmers who wanted to organise their industry should have, if necessary, the power to coerce small and recalcitrant minorities. That was the intention of the Act, but although a great many of us might look upon that principle with suspicion, it was made inevitable by the failure of all attempts at voluntary cooperation in British agriculture. I do not think that the authors of the 1931 Act ever intended the sort of results we have in Scotland, where the producers of no fewer than 12 counties are being coerced into remaining in a scheme which they would get out of if they could. It is a remarkable anomaly that, whereas it takes two-thirds of the producers voting to carry a scheme into effect in the first place, if there is some objection, and if a poll is demanded to decide whether the scheme should be revoked, a bare majority is able to keep the scheme in existence. We may have, as we have in Scotland at the present time, a substantial minority who have this position imposed on them from another part of the country. The House will forgive me for referring in such detail to that matter, but it is of considerable concern to the part of the country I represent.
May I refer to what appears to me—and I speak with some diffidence, not being an agricultural member—to be one of the problems which are ahead of us in the matter of the organisation of marketing? I refer to the question of the extent of the output of the organised products. We have all heard of the American State legislature which repealed the law of supply and demand. That is precisely what is done when a board is set up and is put under an obligation to purchase all the produce, such as milk, that the registered producers can turn out. Experience has shown in the case of the Milk Boards in England and Scotland that in those circumstances supply will tend to outstrip the effective demand; I do not say the real demand, but the effective demand, which it is possible to organise.
That brings us to the solution, if solution it can be called, which was foreshadowed in the Act of 1933. The method which was outlined in that Act was limitation by basic quantity, and by Sections 2 and 10 of that Act the Minister was given power to make an Order limiting the producer to the amount that he produced within a given period. That is a thoroughly vicious principle. It paralyses all initiative; it prevents a man from extending his business, and, still worse, it prevents any newcomer from forcing his way into the industry. If that principle is adopted, industry will be made into a statutory monopoly. I hope that the Minister will not make any further use of the powers which were given to him under the Act of 1933. It seems to me that the only possible compromise to meet this situation lies in the sort of plan which has bene adopted in the Aberdeen scheme. I think it is also in the Inverness scheme. In those cases the producer has a basic quantity, it is true, allotted to him on the basis of his production at a particular period, but he is not limited to that basic quantity. As far as the basic quantity is concerned, he has paid the standard price, but if he likes to supply milk over and above that quantity the Board will take it off his hands and sell it in the market for what it will fetch.
The point of the Aberdeen example is that the Board has power to raise the basic quantity in the case of any producer, and to do it particularly where a man is an efficient producer and where he is producing high grade milk. Where a man is an incompetent producer or his milk is dirty, they have power to lower his basic quantity. I have been told that under the Aberdeen scheme it has been found possible for a newcomer who is efficient to make his way into the industry, and to obtain his basic quantity within a comparatively short period of time. I would suggest that the examples we have in the far north are worthy of the consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I do not wish to delay the House, but in the Motion my hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the necessity for increasing consumption. I suggest to the House that the test of every marketing scheme in the long run must be the extent to which it succeeds in increasing consumption. I am not sure that the present marketing schemes come out very well if judged by that test. Under the potato scheme, each producer has a basic quantity, but I think I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will be good enough to correct me if I am wrong—that, taking the whole country, the acreage under potatoes has fallen under the basic acreage, so that there has actually been a decrease in the acreage under potatoes. Moreover, only on Monday we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) the results of the milk scheme. Under the English scheme there has been a considerable increase of milk for manufacture, but, leaving aside the milk-in-schools scheme, there has been scarcely any increase in the production of milk for liquid consumption. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That was certainly the impression I got from the speech at the time and it was not denied by the Minister who replied. Leaving aside the milk which is supplied through the milk-in-schools scheme—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because it is subsidised and you can increase any consumption by direct subsidy—leaving aside that quantity, which is directly subsidised, there has been no increase.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment tried to draw an antithesis between the views of my hon. and gallant Friend and the interests of the small trader, and he made a most moving appeal on behalf of the small trader. On general grounds I should be entirely in sympathy with him, but my hon. and gallant Friend has made it perfectly clear—and he said it two or three times—that he is not trying to make a, division between the interests of the producer on the one hand and the retail distributor on the other. But I do not think anybody who listened to him has any doubts that the adjectives which he uses in this Motion are fully justified, and I think that in the future we shall have to consider the better organisation of distribution. I do suggest, however, that if we are going to tackle the problem of distribution, the distributors will have to be brought into consultation. In the case of the marketing schemes for the better organisation of the producers, we have not imposed the schemes on the producers, but have allowed them to bring forward their own schemes; and I suggest we ought to see whether it is not possible to adopt a similar procedure in the case of the distributors.
One of the objections that I have to the present marketing schemes is that there are boards which are elected solely by the producers, and are responsible only to the producers, and yet those boards are given very considerable authority over the distributors as well. I do not intend to quote at any length, but I will refer to one provision in the milk marketing scheme. Under paragraph 55 of that scheme the board is empowered to regulate the sales of milk by any registered producer by determining the persons to, or through the agency of, whom and the terms on which milk of any description or quantity of milk may be sold. I may be misinterpreting that, but as I read it, it would be possible for the board to blacklist any distributor and to say that in future he should not be supplied with milk. I do not say those powers have been used in that way, but they are present in the scheme and could be exercised over a distributor. A distributor's business might be taken away by a board on which he has no representation whatever and from whose decision he has no appeal. I do not believe you will ever get a satisfactory organisation of distribution under schemes of that kind. I want to suggest that when we come to overhaul, as I hope we shall in the near future, our schemes for the organisation of agricultural marketing, the board should contain representatives of the consumers and also representatives of the distributors. If that course were adopted I believe we should obviate a great many difficulties.
Does the hon. Member think that producers should be represented on distributing boards at the present time?
There are no statutory distributing boards.
No, but there are effective ones.
I agree that there might be a reciprocal arrangement and I think it would be to the common advantage. Finally, there is one observation I should like to make concerning the Agricultural Marketing Acts. I hope we shall soon have an opportunity of amending those Acts, and for this reason. I think hon. Members will have noticed the extraordinary situation that arises when an agricultural marketing scheme which has been put forward and which has received the approval of the Minister comes up in this House for Parliamentary approval. Very often those schemes are matters of great complexity and affect intimately a very large number of people. Frequently, they are more important than a great many of the Statutes which we spend time and labour in passing through this House. Yet in every case we are powerless to amend those schemes in the slightest degree. On a great many of the marketing schemes—on the milk scheme, the potato scheme and even more so on the hops scheme—we have heard agricultural Members make weighty criticisms to which attention ought to be paid, but the House is debarred by the terms of the Agricultural Marketing Acts from making any sort of Amendment. This means that those Members to whom we ought to listen with the greatest deference on those occasions are put in the difficult position of disliking a great many features of the Agricultural Marketing schemes and yet being unable to express their dislike in a Division Lobby unless they are prepared to reject the whole scheme. That is not only a defect in the machinery of the Acts but derogates from the power and authority of this House. I hope it will not be long before we see an Amendment in that respect.
9.53 p.m.
I shall detain the House for only a very short time because I am not unmindful of the fact that this is a private Member's debate, and I doubt whether interventions from the Front Bench are particularly welcome. I shall also be brief because of the fact that we lost a certain amount of time with the Bill which preceded this Debate. When I saw the Motion on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) I welcomed it, broadly speaking, because I knew it would give rise to an extremely interesting and valuable debate, and because, in view of the great difficulties involved, it would contribute to the cause of agriculture and help the Government in the problems with which they have to deal.
I repeat that, broadly speaking, I welcome the Motion, and there is very little in it with which I can quarrel. But in the last part of the Motion the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the waste and loss resulting from the present chaotic and costly methods of distribution, and I must say candidly that I do not think they can be criticised on the ground that they are so extravagant as that. That is expressing a very strong view about a system which, with all its demerits, has succeeded in giving us a high standard of service for a very large part of the population. It is a little difficult to agree that a system which embraces the efforts of the great cooperative societies, with all their skill in organising distribution, and other big concerns, can be described as chaotic, and I think we can all say that we have no reason to suppose that our system in this country is more wasteful than systems elsewhere. Broadly speaking the public get fairly good service. Every week millions of gallons of milk are distributed to everybody's door in sealed bottles, and that entails a great amount of organisation, and it is difficult for those of us who are not engaged in the work to criticise it without further experi- ence. If my opinion were asked, I should prefer to put some gloss on those words, and for that reason I have no particular quarrel with the Amendment.
I was very glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Member's speech that the words in his Motion did not imply any onslaught upon the small distributors, but I do not think that was clear to the hon. Members who put down the Amendment and who apparently misread the meaning of the Motion. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) also evidently misread the Motion, because he built upon it an argument, as far as I could gather, for the elimination as far as possible of the small shopkeeper. For that reason it would be a pity to put on record a Motion which has been misinterpreted by hon. Members and would be misinterpreted by the public outside. Giving my own personal view on this point I should say that, logically, there is a great deal to be said for the point of view of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. On cold logic, on stark economic facts, there is a great deal in his views. We could get the maximum of efficiency and a minimum of waste by some arrangement by which we eliminated the small distributor. It might be possible to make out a case on those lines. But to me personally a case of that sort, however attractive from a purely economic point of view, is unattractive when I remember that we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of small people who may not be economically the most efficient but who have their lives to lead and are of social value to the community in many ways. They prefer to be their own employers; they do not want to enter into another man's service, and they are prepared to take the risks and the danger of failure; and I am not sure that even at the risk of a certain amount of economic loss to the community it would not be worth while for the community to keep that section of people in being, for the social advantage which it gains in other directions.
In referring to chaotic methods of distribution the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion instanced poultry and beef, and it is worth while pointing out that neither in the case of poultry nor in the case of beef is there a marketing scheme. It is significant that those should be the two commodities with which he chose to illustrate waste in distribution. The marketing schemes, with all their defects, have done a great deal. With regard to the instances which he cited when dealing with milk, I am in this difficulty, that I cannot go into the evidence of those cases because a. committee of investigation is sitting and it would not be right for me to comment on the evidence until they have presented their report. In the case of vegetables, again, there is no marketing board. It would rather look as though considerable assistance in regard to distribution has been forthcoming where marketing boards are in existence, and will be forthcoming in the case of other commodities when the appropriate boards are established.
The hon. and gallant Member referred also to the decline in the agricultural population since 1881, a decline which is still going on, and nobody can regret it more than I do. It is due to a number of causes into which I need not go, but we all know that mechanisation has played a considerable part in it. There is also the cause, which is very clear, that arises out of the financial position in which farmers find themselves to-day. Taking the pre-war period, 1911–13, with the figure of 100 as the basis, prices obtained for agricultural produce in 1925 are represented by the figure 159, and in 1935 by the figure 123, That shows that the returns received by the farmer have been declining, whereas agricultural wages, on a similar comparison were represented by the figure 172 in 1925, 176 in 1930 and 176 also in 1935. Wages have been maintained, and I am thankful they have been, and they have even gone up of late years, but the prices the farmer has received for his produce have gone down, and the effect of that is that farmers have been driven to economise. This state of affairs is not peculiar to our own country but is common to a great many parts of the world, and that is one of the difficulties from which the industry is suffering.
The hon. and gallant Member also drew attention to the fact that the consumption of food had gone up, which is perfectly true. It is one of the elements of the situation with which we are trying to deal without causing a great dislocation of trade. The hon. and gallant Member said that our marketing schemes had stopped too soon. I hope they have not stopped, but that they will go on. He said, further, that they had been introduced in too piecemeal a fashion. Until the livestock position is dealt with the agricultural position in this country will remain unbalanced, but the House knows why, for the moment, we cannot correct that balance. It knows that it is not through any lack of intention on our part. A start was made in the work of assisting the industry with the district of East Anglia by the introduction of the Wheat Act. We have gone on to potatoes, gone on to hops and to pigs and bacon and to milk. We have had to do the work gradually, and gradually we are getting better results, but until we get the livestock situation balanced the criticism will remain that the agricultural industry is not properly balanced. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) said that the test of marketing schemes was whether they increased production.
I said "consumption."
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. [ Interruption. ] Well, whatever he said, I would observe that there is a tendency, not only in the House of Commons but outside, to regard marketing schemes as in some sense restrictive. I can assure hon. Members that the figures show that those schemes are nothing of the kind. Let us look at them for a moment. The pig population has gone up from just over 3,000,000 to 4,500,000 since the marketing scheme began, and in regard to milk those who listened to the Debate on Monday will know that in that section of the industry there has been an increase in production. In the case of potatoes, this year, for the first time in three or four years, there is a decrease in production, due to the low prices last year. Broadly speaking there has been no reduction in production as a result of marketing schemes but, on the contrary, there has been a steady increase in the production of the commodities affected.
I have kept the House for longer than I intended in this reply. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) say that what was required was a regulated system of marketing. That is exactly what we have started and what we are carrying on. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that it is experimental, but my right hon. Friend is experimenting daily, and he is prepared to go on experimenting, and that is why this kind of Debate is so valuable, particularly when it is carried on in a non-party spirit: It is good that we are able to discuss these matters without the introduction of party politics, so that we may be able to draw upon the collective wisdom of the House of Commons. A great deal of permanent good, not only to the country but, in particular, to the Ministry of Agriculture, is likely to result from such Debates.
10.8 p.m.
I should not have intervened in the Debate but for the speech to which we have just listened from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture who, while generally approving the Motion, proceeded to take exception to the last line which asks for the elimination of wasteful, chaotic and costly methods of distribution. He proceeded to tell the House that marketing schemes have been of real assistance to the industries concerned. Surely the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging, by implication, that there is chaos and that it is costly to distribute agricultural produce. The hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) quoted from the Linlithgow Report when he introduced his Motion that the spread between producers' and consumers' prices was too wide and would be anywhere up to the £300,000,000 which, said the Committee, was far higher than society would continue to bear.
All our experience since that time has served to justify not only what was said by the Linlithgow Commission's Report, but the terms of the Motion on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Amendment to the Motion which is a sort of implied compliment to the multiplicity of retailers who, he acknowledges, must be a costly luxury to the State. To which section of retailers does the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. H. Mitchell), who moved the Amendment, refer? Does he refer to the retailers of agricultural produce? He has not that section of the community in mind at all. Although the Motion deals with the production of agricultural produce and its distribution, the hon. Member's Amendment has no relation to agriculture. I wonder whether the hon. Member would have moved that Amendment if he had been successful in capturing the constituency of Western Stirling, and whether, in that case, he would not have been a supporter of the Motion. The Mover of the Amendment seems to have set out to pay a compliment to retailer and to side-track a really useful discussion of the agricultural marketing schemes. I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary countenanced that kind of thing. In our three hours' Debate many practical agriculturists have brought to the Floor of the House hints as to future marketing policy and as to defects in existing marketing schemes, which might very well be attended to with advantage to the farmer.
Suggestions as to the restrictive nature of marketing schemes from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) were countered by the Parliamentary Secretary in an extraordinary manner. He said that marketing schemes had not been restrictive so far, and that we all remembered that it was stated in the Debate in the Milk Debate on Monday that the milk output is larger to-day than ever before. I do not know whether the increase of output is due to the marketing scheme or to the subsidy of £5,500,000. I rather suspect that there may be a dual reason. The hon. Gentleman made reference to the difficulties of the farmer, which we all admit. We recognise, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), that the farmer is often in a cleft stick as, whatever he wants to purchase or desires to do, he is confronted by close combines or monopolies who are not statutory marketing and distributing bodies but, as the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) interjected, are very effective. The farmer is more or less in their hands.
References were made to the fall in the price level. We readily acknowledge that. Reference was also made to the determination of wages by a wages committee, and we are very proud of the Act which we passed in 1924 and which made that possible. The Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the fact that by way of direct or indirect subsidies the State is contributing a very large proportion of the wages that are paid to agricultural workers in this country. We are not anxious to see the farmer exploited by the agricultural labourer, the consumer or the middleman, and that is why we feel that there is no alternative for us, should a vote be pressed—I hope that no vote will be pressed by the Mover of the Amendment—but to support the Motion. We want to see marketing schemes proceeded with in such a way as to eliminate waste and loss to the producers, so that ultimately the farmer may secure a far greater proportion of the prices paid by the consumers than he obtains to-day. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary made a mistake in countenancing the Amendment, and that he ought to have secured for the Motion the support of all hon. Members opposite who really want to support agriculture and agricultural organisation. That would have meant that the House would have been united on the proposition:
10.15 p.m.
In view of the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I am happy to have the opportunity of supporting the Amendment and voting against the Motion. Of course it is perfectly logical for the Socialist party to desire to eliminate every sort and penny of waste, even though it means eliminating a large number of small individual distributors, and also, though perhaps they do not realise it, eliminating a large number of small individual factories in the processing industries connected with agriculture. You have to go the whole way. Logically you must have these schemes for the producer, then you must have some universal system for processing, and then some universal system for distribution, so as to get rid of every penny of waste that exists.
It is only right that I should remind the House that I am one of the two co-opted members of the Bacon Marketing Board, and, therefore, I speak is one who has some connection with one of these boards, and a board which has come in for a good deal of criticism recently. I think it is extremely valuable that we have had an opportunity for a Debate on the boards which have been in operation for some time, because, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) reminded us, all these schemes are schemes which were originally brought forward by producers, and all of them are subject to amendment from time to time. I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee that, when a scheme is brought forward originally, this House should have the right of amending it. The right of amendment still remains in the board or in the producers, and amendments can come in due course before this House; but once a scheme or an amendment has been arrived at through the necessary meetings of the producers, I personally should not think it wise that this House should be able to alter, modify or reverse something which the majority of the producers thought they wanted.
The test of all these schemes must be whether there is a greater consumption of home-produced products. In the case of the Pig and Bacon Marketing Scheme there has been a steadily increasing amount of British bacon going into cure each year. I think the increase for 1935 as compared with 1934 was as much as 36 per cent. That bacon, of course, is only going into cure because there is a steadily increasing market for British bacon in this country. Then comes the question of price. To go into the subject of price fluctuations in any great detail would take too long, but the Pig and Bacon Marketing Scheme is in this position, that the curers have increased their tank capacity by a very large percentage, there has been an enormous improvement in the standard of bacon pig that is coming forward, and the curers are in a position to deal with a vastly larger number of British pigs than they have been able to get this year under the direct contract system.
So far as that is concerned, broadly the scheme is making progress, but price must depend on the factories getting the utmost quantity that they can deal with on an economic throughput. If they can do that, there is no doubt that the factories can produce and market British bacon as cheaply as the Danish factories can. The future of the scheme depends entirely on whether or not producers will come forward with their pigs and keep the factories supplied, and to some extent on reorganisation of the factories, because while both here and in Denmark there is a comparatively small number of very efficient factories, we have also in this country a certain number of small and less efficient factories. There is a great work to be done in the future in somehow or other bringing the factories that we have up to the highest pitch of modern efficiency. I do not propose to touch on the very debatable question of where the factories could be most conveniently situated for the industry as a whole.
There has been tremendous criticism of the pig and bacon and the other schemes throughout the country, and particularly from the farmers and the smallholders, from whom a large quantity of the milk and pigs and so forth come to the market and to the processers. There has been a great lack of liaison between the board and the producers, the smallholders in particular. Vital decisions on policy have been made, affecting the living of the producers, and there has been no proper attempt to explain why those decisions have been come to. A great deal of the criticism that we have heard in the House from time to time is capable of explanation and, when it has been forthcoming, the producers have recognised that the board has had pretty good reasons for the decisions to which it has come. I believe the most enormous service could be done for the future of these schemes if some arrangement could be come to, with the assistance of the Ministry, to keep the producers in touch with the boards and let them know why the boards require to do this and that. Certain boards have started their own papers, but to the farmer and smallholder a broad-sheet or paper coming from the board is suspect and he is inclined to think that the views set out in it are put forward by the board for their own purposes. There should be some sort of organised propaganda in connection with these schemes.
There is the question of the way in which the boards themselves work. Many of them are very large boards indeed, and, compared with boards of directors of companies and boards of management, like co-operative societies and so forth, the time they take for their business is very often extremely long. All sections of the industry have to be represented on these boards, and Very often different sections of the industry have very conflicting views, and the boards have to come to a decision for the good of the whole. I suggest that if the time comes when these schemes are overhauled or when the boards themselves are encouraged to overhaul their schemes, a very great deal might be done if it were possible to devise some system by which you would get smaller boards, each to keep in close touch with the others, and with all departments of State which deal with the matters which they have to handle.
Very often I have had a feeling that the Pig Board had one line of policy in their minds, the Bacon Board another, the Board of Trade another and perhaps the Ministry of Agriculture another line of policy, and from time to time there has been a lack of interchange of ideas which would have avoided some of the mistakes which have been made. Of late months a great deal of that sort of thing has been lessening, but I suggest that agriculture should be treated as a whole, and that if there were some sort of unifying element running through the various boards it would assist enormously in preventing such mistakes as have been made and in making for agricultural development upon lines which, I believe, the whole House desires these boards to take.
10.28 p.m.
Almost every speaker has complimented the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) for bringing this matter before the House, and I agree with that view. He said that he wished to keep this discussion entirely out of the realm of party politics, and I am very much obliged to him for having done so, and I am glad to say that so far the discussion has been kept away from party politics. I cannot conceive that it is legitimate for any industry to be made the pawn of party politics. It is very much better that these matters should be discussed in an unbiased way. The hon. and gallant Member has successfully done that to-night, and he deserves our congratulations. But no solution has been put forward on this very difficult question. One did not expect it. We have had the advantage that the matter has been fully discussed and ventilated.
We cannot deny that the new system of marketing boards in agriculture has done a great deal of good. It is true that the boards have been severely criticised and will continue to be criticised, but that does not detract from the fact that one must shudder at what would have been the state of the industry had it not been for the action of the boards. One does not realise how vast is the problem that has had to be tackled. While we criticise we must give a great deal of credit for what has been done. Reference has been made to the subsidy which agriculture has received and also to the subsidy to the Milk Board. One point that is not always noted is that the benefit of the subsidy has not been entirely confined to the agricultural industry. The reason why the subsidy was given was very largely the unrestricted import of a competitive article from the Dominions, and that was allowed simply because it was in the interests of certain manufacturing industries to enable them to export their manufactured goods to the Dominions. Therefore, not in a very remote way, other industries have benefited from the subsidy as well as agriculture.
The main thing that will have to be considered by the Marketing Board is the question of transport. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke with regard to one point. It is culpable that you should have agricultural produce in one area transported miles for consumption whereas the consuming power lies before the producer's door. That is one of the aspects of the question that will have to be very carefully considered by the board. Another point is that agriculture is suffering and the marketing boards are suffering from the fact that they are unbalanced because only certain articles in agriculture have been dealt with. I hope that one of the effects of the Debate will be to impress upon the Government the neces- sity of doing everything they can to bring forward at as early a date as possible the completion of their scheme for agriculture, not leaving out one portion, because when a portion is left out it is bound to have an ill-effect on the other parts of the industry. I hope that the Minister will see the necessity of there being as little delay as possible in completing the scheme.
10.33 p.m.
I was sorry to hear the rather serious attack on marketing schemes in my country that was made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). His own upbringing having been in Cornwall it has not allowed him to appreciate the fact that Scotsmen always enjoy a fight, and if they can have a good fight on a marketing scheme they will have one. I do not think that the marketing scheme in Scotland as regards milk can be taken as a criterion of milk marketing schemes throughout the country. We have been discussing this question from one end of the problem only. Great stress has been laid on the question of distribution, and there have been arguments on both sides as regards the value of the place that is filled by the large distributor and the small retailer. I fully accept the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke that he meant no attack in his Motion on the small retailer. I only wish that that good intention could have been translated into words on the Order Paper. Equally I feel some trouble as regards the wording of the Amendment and one or two of the remarks which were made by the hon. Member in moving it. However, for the sake of making quite sure that the small retailer, who in the agricultural districts does fill a position which cannot possibly be filled by larger concerns, may not feel that he has been in any way insulted by the wording of the Motion now before the House, I shall feel bound to walk into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, if that is necessary.
We have been considering this problem of marketing schemes as they affect agriculture rather too much from one angle. The effect of the existing scheme has undoubtedly been beneficial to some particular branches of the industry, but by being so beneficial it has played a part in unbalancing production as between different branches of the industry and in laying particular emphasis on the branches which have received assistance. I need not quote the obvious examples which have been already mentioned. The problem is how we are to unravel and unbalance the emphasis between the different branches of the industry in time and without causing great dislocation. Time is a very serious factor in connection with the problem. Already very large sums of money are being expended in what appear to some of us a wasteful manner in buildings land the adaptation of buildings for use in the dairying industry in parts of the country which are not suitable for dairying. My view is that the money should never be so spent, and when the balance as between different branches of agriculture is eventually restored it is more than likely that these buildings will be unwanted for the dairying industry. Time is therefore important.
Whilst we all agree that the experiments being carried out are essential and of extreme value before a further policy can be worked out, I beg the Government to go further than they have and institute a complete national agricultural production survey, covering all the land of the country, for the purpose not of dragooning producers and farmers into producing any one particular crop, but for the purpose of making information available for the first time in this country as to what particular crop or commodity can be produced most economically and most efficiently in any particular part of the country. Our experience of a scheme of subsidies has drawn our attention to the fact that it is essential to encourage only those producers of commodities who are producing them in the right places and at the right price. I would ask how it is possible to discover the whole facts of the situation as regards economic production without some such survey as I have suggested? The information thus obtained should be used not only for Government purposes but also to persuade those who live in the right districts to produce the right crops. Surely the problem of distribution depends on the solution of that question.
What is the use of building up, in haphazard fashion, vast organisations for the collection of the commodity which is being produced, and the distribution of the necessary means of production, and also, possibly, for the processing of the commodity, unless we assure ourselves that we are putting those organisations in the right place where I hope eventually they will be found? I would urge on the Government to institute such a survey. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have a survey."] The type of survey which I am suggesting is not such as anyone has attempted to produce yet in this country on a national scale. Over a considerable area production surveys have been made, not by Government effort but by the efforts of some earnest and gallant research workers in agriculture assisted to a very small degree by Government grants—I wish these had been larger—assisted also by such societies as the Bath and West. These surveys cover some parts of the country and the West of England has been particularly fortunate in that connection. I only wish that the Midlands and the North had been covered in the same way. It is those gaps which, I think, ought to be covered at once and the results over all the areas ought to be correlated to form part of a national agricultural report. I hope that some steps in that direction will be taken. My only regret is that the wording of the Motion, with the major part of which I find myself in complete agreement, is such that I shall feel forced, if necessary, to support the Amendment.
10.43 p.m.
I rise to deal with a special point rather than to discuss the general scheme of marketing. I think we are agreed that some improvement in the marketing and distribution of agricultural products is necessary but the question about which some of us are concerned is how that improvement is to be effected. An hon. Member opposite said he would not embark upon the discussion of the question as to where the markets of the country are placed but it is precisely that aspect of the subject that I want to consider. I think the great urban population of this country after their experience of the Marketing Acts have found that the effect of those Measures has been in relation to prices rather than in relation to the question of efficiency in the method of distribution. That is the case especially with regard to the marketing of dead meat. I understand the Government have been toying with a regional scheme of abattoirs and I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary did not disclose the Government's policy on this vital matter. I gather that the idea has been to have 12 or 13 huge places in convenient parts of the country around which will grow up factories to deal with the various byproducts incidental to that industry irrespective of whether the capital which has already been sunk in such places by the municipalities is lost or not.
I think it is time we had from the Government a very definite statement of policy on this matter. I happen to be President of the Northern Authorities Markets Association, and I know that many local authorities in this country, and many of the large local authorities in fact, are very anxious to know what the Government's policy on this matter may be. Let us take one individual case. Liverpool have built a very fine place, and I should imagine, without allying myself to any actual figure, that they have sunk in this place three quarters of a million of money. They say themselves that it is possibly the finest place of its kind in the country. Let us imagine the Government coming along with a policy and saying that these great abattoirs have to be placed in the producing areas. Where is it going to leave Liverpool? Are the Government going to come forward with a scheme of compensation for Liverpool? Are they going to say to Liverpool, "We will take all this trade away from you, in which your citizens have sunk three quarters of a million of money, and take this great abattoir to the producing areas"? I think we are entitled to some disclosure of policy on the part of the Government in this matter.
Take Sheffield, in which I am interested. They built a very fine place, in which they have sunk something like £400,000 of capital. It is feasible, of course, that the Government may come forward, if the farmers get their way on this matter, and say, "It is quite improper that this very fine abattoir should be placed in the consuming areas; we will take it right away from you into the producing areas." Well, Sheffield will want to know something about it. It is time the Government let us know what they mean to do in this matter. Local authorities even now are being held up in regard to the construction of abattoirs, and those who have built these very fine places and sunk money in them really want to know what are the Government's intentions. If the Government come forward with a scheme to take these places out of the consuming areas, they will have mobilised against them, I think I can say, all the representatives in this House of these great urban authorities. It is really a very serious matter, and I would have liked the Parliamentary Secretary to have been more definite about that aspect of the question.
10.48 p.m.
I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) for having brought before the House this evening this Debate on agricultural marketing. It has been particularly useful, because the House has had the advantage and the privilege of listening to a very excellent speech from the hon. and learned member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on the working of the Pigs Marketing Board. I congratulate him on that speech, but I should like to say a word or two in regard to the activities of that board. The House should understand that there are two boards. There is the Pig Board, the board of the producers, and there is the Bacon Board, the board appointed by the processors.
And there is the Development Board.
That may be, but the two boards I have mentioned have come into contact with regard to prices, and the Bacon Board has out-beaten the Pork Board. It is a simple situation. I am still a supporter of the board, because I feel confident that the next time a contract is made the Pork Board will see to it that it is equal to the Bacon Board. We agriculturists are happy in the knowledge that we have the support and sympathy of hon. Members who represent industrial towns. A prosperous agriculture is the best customer for their manufactures. We can only retain that sympathy and good will if we can produce our agricultural commodities in quantities and of the quality that the towns require. The agriculturist is essentially an individualist. He has been used to producing and selling what he likes, and to whom he likes. To-day those circumstances are no longer possible, because the individual farmer cannot supply the market with the goods of the quality and quantity it requires at any time, and it is essential that there should be some organisation within the industry.
Our trouble has been that the prices received by the farmer have in many cases not reached the cost of production. One remedy is to decrease the cost of production, but those in the industry know that that is hardly possible. The other way is to increase the receipts. If the spread which exists between the price the consumer pays and what the producer receives could be narrowed, there would be a great increase in agricultural resources. I hold the view that one of the difficulties, not only in agriculture but in other industries, is the exploitation, as it is called, that takes place between the producer and the consumer. I am not going to attack any particular form of distribution, but in the agricultural industry there are too many types of distribution agencies. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) that the purpose of these marketing Acts is to bring the producer into closer touch with the consumer. If the marketing schemes could take some line towards collective assistance great help would be given to British agriculture.
10.55 p.m.
There has been a surprising unanimity among Members of all sides on this Motion. The one exception was the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who said he objected to the milk scheme because it was not working in Scotland, and he objected to that Section of the 1931 Marketing Act, which the Government have adopted, which restricted production. The outstanding fact in the milk scheme is that there is not a restriction of production but that there is, in fact, a 20 per cent. increase of production.
I said that I objected to the Scottish milk marketing scheme because it has failed to work, and I said that I hoped the powers of restriction of production under the 1933 Act would not be used.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who adopted the hon. Member's argument, seems to have fallen into the same error as I did, because, in supporting it, he said that in the milk scheme there had not been an increase of production except for the subsidy. The facts are that before the subsidy was introduced there was a large increase of production of milk, and because of that increase the Minister of Agriculture had to produce the milk scheme in the first instance. We can say that all the marketing schemes have increased the consumptive power as well as the productive power of this country.
The milk scheme is in difficulties because beef is not paying. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to give us a fair deal in beef. The Argentine Agreement ought to come up this year, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity for securing his long-term policy for beef which he has announced and which the House knows will be adopted. We have a beef subsidy at the present
time, but it is not assisting the beef farmer to produce good beef. It is a flat rate subsidy, and if we had a graded subsidy there would be an incentive to produce good beef. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have talked about the large difference between the price of fat stock and the price of beef in the British shops. One of the reasons for this is that there is no incentive for good beef to be sent into the market, and the butcher, not having good beef from the market, cannot get the quality that the consumer demands. There is great need here for the Government's long-term policy, and it is with the hope that that will soon be introduced that I ask the House to give support to the Government's marketing policy which is doing a great deal of good for agriculture.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 107.
Division No. 46.] AYES. [11.0 p.m. Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Grenfell, D. R. Paling, W. Adamson, W. M. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Parkinson, J. A. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Potts, J. Aske, Sir R. W. Groves, T. E. Price, M. P. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pritt, D. N. Banfield, J. W. Hardle, G. D. Quibell, J. D. Barr, J. Harris, Sir P. A. Riley, B. Batey, J. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ritson, J. Bellenger, F. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Benson, G. Hollins, A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Bevan, A. Jagger, J. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Bromfield, W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Rothschild, J. A. de Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Rowson, G. Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A. Burke, W. A. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Sexton, T. M. Cluse, W. S. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Shepperson, Sir E. W. Cocks, F. S. Kelly, W. T. Silverman, S. S. Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Simpson, F. B. Daggar, G. Kirby, B. V. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Kirkwood, D. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lawson, J. J. Smith, E. (Stoke) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, F. Smith, T. (Normanton) Day, H. Logan, D. G. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Dobble, W. Lunn, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Ede, J. C. McEntee, V. La T. Tinker, J. J. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) MacLaren, A. Viant, S. P. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Maclean, N. Watkins, F. C. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Watson, W. McL. Foot, D. M. Marklew, E. Whiteley, W. Gallacher, W. Marshall, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Gardner, B. W. Mathers, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Milner, Major J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Montague, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) Glbbins, J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Naylor, T. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Owen, Major G. Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland.
NOES. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Apsley, Lord Bossom, A. C. Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Bird, Sir R. B. Bull, B. B. Campbell, Sir E. T. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Cartland, J. R. H. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Reed, A C. (Exeter) Carver, Major W. H. Hopkinson, A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Cary, R. A. Horsbrugh, Florence Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Channon, H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Hulbert, N. J. Salmon, Sir I. Christie, J. A. Hume, Sir G. H. Salt, E. W. Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hunter, T. Scott, Lord William Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Jackson, Sir H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) James, Wing-Commander A. W. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Craven-Ellis, W. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Crooke, J. S. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Smith, L. W. (Hallam) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Loftus, P. C. Spens, W. P. Cross, R. H. Lyons, A. M. Strickland, Captain W. F. Cruddas, Col. B. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) McKie, J. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Denville, Alfred Magnay, T. Sutcliffe, H. Dodd, J. S. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Touche, G. C. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Train, Sir J. Dugdale, Major T. L. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. Duggan, H. J. Munro, P. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Duncan, J. A. L. Nail, Sir J. Turton, R. H. Eckersley, P. T. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Wakefield, W. W. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Findlay, Sir E. Patrick, C. M. Waterhouse, Captain C. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Penny, Sir G. Wedderburn, H. J. S. Fyfe, D. P. M. Perkins, W. R. D. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Gibson, C. G. Peters, Dr. S. J. Womersley, Sir W. J. Goodman, Col. A. W. Pilkington, R. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Plugge, L. F. Guy, J. C. M. Porritt, R. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Harbord, A. Radford, E. A. Mr. H. Mitchell and Colonel Clifton Brown. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Ramsbotham, H.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential to the prosperity of British agriculture and to the health of the community that the supply and distribution of agricultural produce be organised, so as to encourage an increased consumption of home-grown produce and the employment of additional labour on the land, and to eliminate the waste and loss which result from the present chaotic and costly methods of distribution."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Coal Industry (Mining Subsidence)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir G. Penny. ]
11.8 p.m.
I had not expected to see the half-defeat of the Government, and I enter upon my task with exultation, expecting that the Secretary for Mines, seeing the trend of events, will probably be in a mood to give way to me to a greater extent than otherwise. The question of mining subsidence which I am raising is one to which the attention of the House ought to be directed. Everyone who has worked or lived in a mining area knows what happens. The removal of the coal from the earth leaves certain cavities underground, and after a lapse of time the surface above sinks in, and we get depressions all over the area. Those depressions would probably not cause much trouble, or not give the same amount of trouble, were it not for the buildings, the water mains and gas mains which are displaced in consequence. Municipalities are troubled by the extra cost which results from subsidences for which no remedy by way of payment has been found. A Commission was set up in 1923 and sat for about four years. Ultimately it arrived at findings which were not satisfactory to the people concerned. For the moment they did not think it proper to give any compensation, and from that time the trouble has continued.
I can bring evidence to-night from my own locality of the excessive cost which has been encountered. I have written to town councils and urban district councils in my constituency, and I have direct evidence of the cost to which they have been put. I ought to read one or two examples from the letters which they have sent me. The first is from Atherton. They have not been able to give me the exact amount of the cost to which they have been put, but they say in the letter they sent me: and they go on—
We are asking the Government to go more fully into this matter. It is not right that the matter should be left to the people who live in the mining villages. In their findings, the Commission stated that as those villages had had the benefit of the works being there they ought to be prepared to stand some of the damage. I have been reading a book to-day called "English Journey," written by Priestley, and in that book he says:
I feel sure that the Minister will say that this question has been examined, and that therefore the findings must stand. But many things that happened in the past have had to be reconsidered. Our whole history has been a reflection of attempts to improve on what has happened in the past. We sit here for the purpose of improving on what has happened in the past. At one time it was considered to be out of the question to do anything about royalties, but now the House of Commons is going to deal with them; we have decided that no longer can the owners of coal be allowed to decide when it shall be worked. If that had been said 20 years ago there would have been great indignation on the benches opposite; it would have been said that you could not interfere with private enterprise or private profit, but that the owners must be the sole masters. Now that we feel able to deal with these points, I say that the time has come when the House of Commons should consider these localities that are suffering so intensely because of what has happened. It is not fair that men and women living in these places should have to bear this extra burden. They are not to blame for the getting of coal in the area, and therefore, when the drains, sewers, and gas and water mains collapse because of what has taken place, it is not fair that people who probably never had anything to do with the getting of coal should suffer.
I put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject, and here I have a grievance. I went to the Clerk at the Table and we had a talk over it. He agreed that it was a question for the Prime Minister, and it so appeared on the Order Paper. I saw that it was too big a question for any other Minister, but was a matter for the head of the State. It was, however, transferred to the Secretary for Mines, and I hope he will not mind my saying that it ought not to have been passed on to him, because already he has enough on his shoulders. He, feeling, no doubt, that it was too big a question for him, shuffled it off, referring me to the Commission's report. I objected to its going to a place with Cromwell's name over it, but that Cromwell has now been dead quite a long time, and the effect of his power has gone. I want to appeal to the modern Cromwell; I am putting the Prime Minister in the place of Cromwell. He wields immense power. I do not like this matter which affects so many people being handed on to Cromwell House. I want it put to the head of the Government. In order to try to get the Prime Minister here, I sent him a personal note and asked him whether he could not be present. He sent a secretary to me to say that he was too busy. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would be here to-night if he could because this is a question for him and, to-morrow morning, people in my locality will want to know what the Prime Minister is doing about this kind of thing. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has been to see the right hon. Gentleman and to get authority from him to tell me that the matter will be looked into again. The time has come for a further examination of the question, especially in regard to dealing with the royalties, because I believe that when that Bill is being dealt with, some of the money that goes to royalty owners should go to these derelict districts.
11.22 p.m.
I am sure none of us can complain of the very frank way in which the hon. Member has stated his case. Everyone must be pleased that he should have raised the issue because it is of obvious interest to his constituents. It would be a very sorry day for the House of Commons if Members did not on the Adjournment Motion take the opportunity of raising such questions. Having done it myself I should be the last to complain. But I must also say that he has done it in a very nice way with regard to myself because he only gave notice that it was in view of the reply I had given him, not of the unsatisfactory reply, which is the usual form. Therefore I quite see that what he had in mind was that this question should be brought before the House at an opportune moment and that it should be there on the records for us to study. I also rather think that he anticipated some of the speech which he hopes to make on the Royalties Bill. He must not expect me to anticipate the speech that I shall make on that occasion. I cannot possibly on this occasion make any statement in regard to what may or may not be the actual Measure when it is introduced. The hon. Member based his case on the difficulties in which local authorities have found themselves with regard to this subsidence problem. So long as we are going to have this on record, I think we had better have the reply on record, and that is to be found largely in the report of the Royal Commission which was set up to deal with this problem not so very long ago, because it only reported less than 10 years ago.
We have had changes of Government since then.
But the problem has not in its essence changed. Nothing fresh has happened. On the Royal Commission, of course, are representatives of all kinds of views. Originally the Chairman was Lord Chelmsford, and two of its most distinguished members were the late Mr. Hartshorn and Mr. William Adamson. They left the Commission when the first Labour Government was formed and were replaced by Mr. Morrell and Mr. Welsh. They considered a great deal of evidence, including that of the local authorities, on this problem, and came to a unanimous conclusion. Whatever their own political views, they had no doubt as to what the answer should be as regards the local authorities case. Briefly, the case is that the local authorities who had these statutory undertakings had received their powers under what is called a "code," which is laid down in a variety of Acts, and the mere execution of a work in pursuance of that code, which comes from Private Bill legislation, gives to the undertakers under the code no right of starting at the outset. They had the right to receive notice that mining works are advanced to within a prescribed distance, and then they have the option of requiring that certain minerals should not be worked on payment of certain compensation to mine owners. If this option was not exercised they should have no claim under the law to compensation. The general principle is that as far as the code is applicable undertakers have no common law or any other right to support or to compensation. The local authorities brought the case before the Royal Commission; the whole trouble was one really of money; the right of support never having been acquired by the authorities and never having been paid for the losses must be borne by the authorities or somebody else. That is in essence the question. The Royal Commission having gone into that point said they could not see that the local authorities should have any such rights. They decided that it would have been a very different position if it were a question of an absolute right of support or if the right were demanded for reasons of health or something of that kind, but as it was only a claim for pecuniary compensation, they said that in every instance the local authority had all that the Parliamentary arrangement gave it and everything for which it paid anything. It is for the local authority to show why it should be relieved of the burden which it has assumed.
Nobody asked it to assume the burden. It knew it had no common law right of support, yet it took that burden upon itself, and when there is something to pay the local authority turns round and says, "We ought to get compensation." The Royal Commission came unanimously to the conclusion that there was no case. It put it in the form of a question:
Has there not been one very important change, and that is that since the De-rating Act—
It being half after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain BOURNE) adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order,