asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to ask for the release of the building trade workers at Stranraer now engaged in the defence service.

As I indicated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on 14th June, the building workers referred to are available for temporary release for essential local building work. Immediately the Ministry of Labour intimate that they are unable from their other resources to meet essential building trade requirements in the Stranraer area, arrangements will be made for the granting of the necessary temporary releases in accordance with the provisions of the scheme agreed with the Ministry of Labour.

Am I to understand from the answer that these 28 building trade workers are to be incarcerated in Stranraer unless they are required for local building operations? Cannot they be used elsewhere?

I cannot, for security reasons, discuss why the National Fire Service remains at that strength, but I agree with the hon. Member that it is highly desirable that building trade workers who are in the Fire Service should be granted temporary release in any area where their services can be used for house building.

Surely it is unnecessary today to have skilled building trade operatives as members of the Fire Service? Could not the right hon. Gentleman now see that their places are filled with men of less skill?

Again for security reasons, I cannot give an affirmative answer.

Would the Secretary of State consider the advisability of releasing men of this description all over Scotland and bringing them back into the building industry?

The purpose of the scheme which I negotiated with the Ministry of Labour was that they would be temporarily released in any case where the local building pool of labour was insufficient.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be in a position to state what subsidies will be paid to local authorities in respect of the Portal house; and what is likely to be the rent.

I hope to be in a position to make a statement about the arrangements for the erection, management and finance of the emergency factory-made house in Scotland, in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Scottish Housing Bill which will be pre- sented to the House this week, or upon some other occasion in the immediate future.

Are we to understand that Scotland is to get 100,000 Portal houses? What proportion of these will be manufactured in Scotland?

I cannot say how many we will get, but I have asked for 100,000. As to the proportion of the component parts which will be manufactured in Scotland, that is still a matter for discussion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement on the consultation he has been having on credit facilities, upon which much of our post-war trade will depend.

I hope, following consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be able to introduce legislation next Session to extend export credits facilities.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a full statement on the consultations that have taken place on post-war trade with the U.S.S.R.; who have taken part in the talks; and have any private firms been involved in any form.

These discussions, as I stated in reply to my hon. Friend on 16th May last, are being carried on between His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow and the Soviet Government and are proceeding. The discussions are between Governments and no private firms are, therefore, involved in them. But, as I informed my hon. Friend, a number of manufacturers in this country are, I am glad to say, in touch with Soviet representatives about post-war business.

In view of the fact that this country has strained itself in its war contribution more than any other country, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all possible steps are being taken to bring about the maximum trade between this country and the Soviet Union?

Yes, Sir; we are very anxious to do all we can on both sides. As I said in the reply which I have already quoted, there have been consultations in Moscow between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, and a desire has been expressed on both sides to expand Anglo-Soviet trade on a firm basis after the war.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that constant references are being: made in an American trade journal to the arrangements that have already been arrived at; and will he bear in mind that it is those references that are causing concern in this country?

People should remember that things that appear in the Press, even in American trade journals, are not always correct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Overseas Trade Department implicated in these negotiations?

All Members of the Government are implicated more or less, and my right hon. Friend and myself more than the others.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the committee which is to consider the reform of the Patent Laws is empowered to investigate the records of patentees with a view to ascertaining whether the existing law has been used in a manner contrary to the public interest.

An inquiry into this matter would certainly fall within the terms of reference of the committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what cases have in recent time been brought to his notice of hindrances being put in the way of British trade in neutral countries; and whether commercial attaches have been instructed to report all such cases immediately.

None, Sir, Generally speaking, neutral countries are anxious to import from us far more than we can spare, having regard to our own needs and those of Empire and Allied Countries, which are dependent upon us for supplies.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government's policy, as expressed in the White Paper on Employment Policy, on the matter of restrictive practices in industry applies also to trade and commerce.

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government's policy on restrictive practices in industry is concerned only with the effect of such practices on employment or also with the effect on prices.

With both, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the representation made by the West Ham Education Committee, a copy of rich has been sent to him by the hon. Member for Plaistow; and what steps he is taking in the matter.

Yes, Sir, and I have given it careful consideration, but I regret that, at this critical stage of the war, I cannot see my way to extend the supplementary coupon allowance in the way suggested by the committee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that nurses are given coupon concessions for the purchase of stockings, he will give similar concessions to physiotherapists who are required to wear stockings by the rules of the hospitals in which they work.

No, Sir. I regret that, in view of the shortage of supplies, I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that on 27th June, in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), he said that the ground for giving extra coupon concessions to nurses in hospitals was that it was important, on hygienic grounds, that they should have a good supply of stockings? Does not the same ground exist in the case of physiotherapists working in the same hospitals?

I understand that a physiotherapist is what used to be called in the old days a masseur, and I am advised by the Ministry of Health, who are great experts on these matters, and by the Department of Health for Scotland that the case for masseurs having an additional issue, is less strong than it is for other nurses, but I would be glad to look into it again. This is, admittedly, a borderline case. We have to draw the line for the concession somewhere, but I shall be happy to go into it again.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that masseurs do not wear stockings, but that masseuses do? Would it not be better if these reactionary hospitals altered their rules as many hospitals have done to allow their staffs not to wear stockings?

I will consult the Ministry of Health on what the next step should be.

Whether my right. hon. Friend uses the old word or the new word, cannot he get a plain English word for these nurses?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would suggest a name, a short and simple English name, and I shall be glad to adopt it.

Rubbers.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider an early modification of the conditions of entry into some restriction areas, with a view to enabling certain limited categories of people to evacuate to relatives living in relatively safe places within a restriction area.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) last Thursday.

Is the Minister aware that there is a limited number of people who, in their own interests as well as in the national interest, should be able to stay with their relatives in the country? Can he not give this matter urgent consideration, because there appears to be no reason why, in certain parts of the restriction areas, this should not be done? Is this not a matter of very great importance?

I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter is being given urgent consideration.

How long does it take to arrive at a decision when something is being given "urgent consideration," when ordinary people can make up their minds in about five minutes?

asked the Secretary of State for War, if he can make a statement on the increase of allowances of dependants of men in the Services.

This is one of the questions which will be covered by the statement on anomalies which will, I understand, be made soon.

Cannot the Minister come to an understanding at this stage, that nobody will be worse off as a result of the recent adjustment, either Servicemen or their dependants?

That point does not seem to arise out of the Question.

Yes, it does.

Why was not an announcement previously made that this matter would be connected with the statement on anomalies—or are there really to be two statements, covering the whole range of subjects?

I think a statement will be made to cover the whole range of subjects. I was not quite aware at the time whether it would be a composite statement, or more statements than one.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the method of granting soldiers free travel warrants from Egypt to Palestine or Syria is not satisfactory; and whether he will endeavour to give facilities to these men for free return rail warrants to a specified station in Palestine, plus his ration allowance, so that men who do not desire to spend their 14 days' leave in an Army camp will not be penalised, but will be given the liberty of choice in this matter.

These questions are now being examined.

Is there not a great desire on the part of men who have been a long time away from home to visit some of these places of Biblical interest but at the present time the Regulations are materially operating against them?

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in believing that the men are, even now, compelled to go to a leave camp. In any event, what is under consideration is the question of increasing the facilities.

Is the Minister not aware that some penalties are imposed on these men if they do not go to the leave camp, in that they have to forgo, their high ration allowance, which is a very considerable amount—four guineas?

I was not aware of that, and it is not consistent with my information. Perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me, giving the facts as he has been told them.

I want to thank the Minister for that invitation, and to say that I have already sent the facts to him. That is why the Question is down.

asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that mail and newspapers for the troops in Normandy take on average six days to arrive from England; and whether he can now effect speedier deliveries.

Mails and newspapers are being despatched from this country and distributed to our troops in Normandy as quickly as operational conditions and the weather in the Channel will allow.

Now that we have captured the port of Cherbourg, will the right hon. Gentleman see that mails and newspapers are delivered quickly to the troops, as these things are almost as important as some of their rations and ammunition?

I should have thought that six days was pretty good, under present conditions.

Is the Minister aware that the troops do not think so?

My information is to the contrary.

If it was possible to take the Minister of Information there in three hours, might not the information itself be sent there nearly as quickly?

Is the Minister aware that I was speaking to the mother of one of these lads yesterday, and was informed that six letters had been sent to him and that in the third letter which came from him yesterday, covering a period of three weeks, he said that he had not received one of those letters?

I am prepared to believe that accidents have happened. A very large number of troops are involved, and an occasional accident is not entirely impossible. All I say is that, on the whole, the service is extremely good.

asked the Secretary of State for War why two soldiers of whose names and numbers he has been informed, were sent on service behind the enemy lines after their period of five years overseas had already expired.

I am making inquiries of the Command concerned and will then communicate with the hon. Member.

Is there a minimum period of home service, after five years' service overseas?

That is another question, which I have endeavoured to answer on other occasions. We are trying to secure a minimum service, but it is not always possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War if British women correspondents are afforded the same facilities as Dominion women war correspondents.

Yes, Sir. British and Dominion women correspondents are afforded the same facilities for reporting the war.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the fact that Mr. P. S. Taylor, who is at present running a bakery business in Eastbourne, has a doctor's, certificate stating that his health will break down if he does not have a short rest from work, he will release his brother 10631046 Private H. V. Taylor from the service for three months compassionate leave to enable Mr. P. S. Taylor to rest and recuperate.

This case has been very carefully considered on at least two occasions, and I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the replies which my hon. and gallant Friend has received.

As it appears that an essential food supply to a number of my constituents is likely to break down, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, despite announcements to the contrary, V cigarettes were still being issued to troops in India in May, 1944; and if he can give an assurance that V cigarettes are no longer issued to any of our troops.

I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India about the supply of cigarettes to troops in India or based on India. In other Commands, Indian cigarettes are no longer being issued.

As my evidence is, I think, good, and as we had been given to under- stand that the issue of these cigarettes had ceased, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the India Office that we ought to have a reply as soon as possible, whether that is so or not?

Yes, Sir, I certainly will.

In connection with these cigarettes, can the Minister say why Customs duty has to be paid on cigarettes for soldiers in France?

That point does not arise out of this Question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down, and I will then give him an answer. I think, anyhow, that it is a purely temporary phenomenon.

asked the Secretary of State for War if, when a telegram is sent to the next-of-kin of anyone in the services who is seriously ill, it could also be stated in the telegram that travel warrants can be obtained at the nearest police station.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 21st March. The telegram which is sent to the next-of-kin of officers and men who are dangerously ill ends with the words "a return railway warrant for two persons, one a relative, will be issued on production of this telegram at the nearest police station."

asked the Secretary of State for War if, when next-of-kin apply for travel warrants to visit anyone in the Services who is seriously ill, police stations will be instructed to advise them that the local Red Cross liaison officer will meet them, take them to the hospital, find them billets and look after them while they are staying near the hospital.

Although the local Red Cross liaison officer does all he can to help next-of-kin who are visiting patients in hospital it is, I understand, impossible to guarantee that he will know of their arrival or be able to find them billets near the hospital. Such arrangements as are possible are made as part of the work of the Red Cross on behalf of wounded and sick soldiers. My hon. Friend will appreciate that they are not made by the War Department.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the maximum value for duty-free parcels which may be sent home by British soldiers from the C.M.F. and the M.E.F., in order to put them on the same basis as the United States troops serving in those areas.

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on 28th June by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to which I have nothing to add.

Would the Chancellor say whether any consultation has taken place with the United States Army authorities to see whether uniformity in the matter of postal services could not be made within a Command?

It is not, primarily, a question of postal services, but a question of liability to pay Customs duties.

Is it not the number of parcels, and the amount that can go into the parcels that are in question?

It has not been considered primarily from that point of view.

Is it not a fact that the present concession was made at a time when the communications between here and the Mediterranean were very much more extended than they are now?

No, Sir, I do not think so. A further concession was made the other day. It is a question of duty-free parcels.

Would the Chancellor pursue this matter further, because the amount of revenue that is derived by taxing these parcels from troops overseas, who are not in a position to purchase large quantities, cannot be substantial, and if he can make this improvement, it would be very welcome among the troops serving overseas?

I think that is perhaps open to question. There would be great inequalities between troops in areas where facilities were available, and those in areas where facilities were not available.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that, in the Burnley Salute the Soldier week, of the first £526,804 subscribed £200,000 was put up by the Burnley Building Society, £50,000 by each of four banks and £100,000 by the Borough Building Society; and whether he will see that comparable figures are obtained from all other Salute the Soldier weeks.

In reply to the part of the Question, the total raised in the Burnley "Salute the Soldier" Week was £1,150,696, of which small savings accounted for £237,823. I am aware that particulars were published locally of the subscriptions to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to the second part, I see no objection to the continuation of the present practice, under which local committees may publish particulars of this character if the disclosure assists the local savings campaign and the consent of the subscribers has been obtained: otherwise I am not prepared to modify the rule that the sources and amounts of individual subscriptions should be kept confidential.

Am I to gather from the Chancellor's reply that where the subscriptions by the larger institutions form the major portion—a far greater proportion than the one quoted here—he will discourage their publication?

No, Sir, I do not discourage publication at all. I leave it to the local committee.

What would be the position in the case of London recently when £10,000,000 more than the amount aimed at, was guaranteed before the week began? What was the purpose of all the "ballyhoo" and of spending £20,000 on all that nonsense in Trafalgar Square?

As I have explained again and again, these large contributions do serve a very useful purpose.

The Chancellor always gets away with that, but is all this extravagance and cost justified by this small amount, which is only 20 per cent, of the total?

That is a matter for debate but I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member.

Is not the whole object of these things to prop up an outworn monetary system?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement regarding the conversations which are taking place between the United States and British Governments with a view to coming to some agreement which will obviate double taxation and fiscal evasion in the case of their respective nationals.

I am afraid I can add nothing to what I said on this subject during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 23rd May, 1944. The discussions are taking place between the technical representatives of the two Governments and are, therefore, in the exploratory stage.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the United States representatives have been here for six months, and that time marches on?

As far as the Inland Revenue authorities are concerned, there has been no loss of time.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will devise a scheme to give a high priority for houses to regular soldiers retired after the war, who, because of their terms of service, have never had a permanent home.

I have been asked to reply. It has already been stated that considera- tion will be given to the special claims of men returning from the Forces in regard to housing accommodation after the war, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that in settling priorities among ex-Service men the urgency of the need rather than the category of the service should be the determining factor.

While agreeing with my hon. and gallant Friend in general, may I ask whether he is not aware that the regular soldier who is on long service has, in fact, no local authority, and could he not represent to the Minister of Health that this category of regular soldier will require special attention?

Yes, Sir, I will bring that point to the notice of the Minister.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are no houses for the men to get? How are you going to deal with that problem when there are no houses for them?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one of my constituents spent the whole of his leave recently looking for a house, never having had a home since he was married? He was told he would not get one for ten years. Can the Minister say, as permanent houses can be built more cheaply than temporary tin huts, that the policy of the Minister will be to produce permanent homes?

I am sure that both these angles are in the Minister's mind.

asked the Minister of Health to what extent it is his intention to use the group scheme for the preparation of 'housing sites, announced in Circular 14/44, to keep in being large organisations of building contractors so that they may be employed, if necessary, to do large constructional work outside Great Britain.

The decision to use the grouping scheme for the advance preparation of housing sites was taken because the Government believe that in present circumstances this is the most economical and efficient method of doing this work. It was quite unconnected with any other intentions or possibilities.

Do I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend's reply that this group system is to be used entirely in Great Britain?

I am afraid I do not know. I am not an expert.

To what extent were the people excluded by the group system consulted; or was advice taken only from the big six?

Regarding housing sites, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer to the Minister of Health the fact that the only way to get round the housing sites difficulty, is to nationalise the land?

Measured by the employment it provides, agriculture is our greatest industry. At the last census in Scotland there were 176,000 persons who made their living by it. Our next largest industry was coalmining, with 132,000. But agriculture is more than our largest industry. It supplies the lifestream of the nation. Without continuous contact and reinvigoration from agriculture, our urban population would wither and die. In war-time we should have been starved into surrender, had not our farmers, farm-workers, scientists, technicians, and administrators united to increase the yield from our flocks, from our herds, and from our fields. Yet week after week goes by, and seldom is there a Question in this House about Scots agriculture. That does not mean that there are no grievances to be met, or improvements to be made, but it does, I think, mean that the machinery of the war agricultural executive committee and local consultation is functioning well and that the general relationship between farmers, farmworkers and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland could not have been bettered. Nevertheless, this absence of Questions on the Order Paper about agriculture certainly leaves me in gathering doubt as to the subject or subjects I should choose for commentary in presenting the agricultural Estimates for the next financial year.

Apart from war services, the estimated increase of expenditure will be £138,000. I will not, I hope, unduly burden the Committee with figures, but hon. Members will be interested, I am sure, to know that the acreage under crops in 1943 was 2,120,700. That was an increase of 43 per cent. over the last prewar year, and it was 21,500 acres more than the acreage under crops in 1918, despite the loss of 300,000 acres of agricultural land since that year. In 1939——

How was it lost?

It is lost to agriculture. It has been lost, for example, for aerodromes. In 1939, some 120,000 tons of seed potatoes were exported to England. From the 1943 crop, the comparable figure is, approximately, 473,000 tons, equal to an increase of 300 per cent. The number of allotments in Scotland in 1943 was 84,000, compared with just under 20,000 in 1939; and a peak of 43,000 in the last war. The estimated yield from our allotment system is 40,000 tons of vegetables. To assist production on marginal lands, grants in 1943 amounted to £126,670, an average of nearly £20 per farm assisted. The scheme is being intensified this year and £300,000 is provided in the Estimate for that purpose. Of land improvements and drainage, I can report that, since the outbreak of war, nearly 450,000 acres in Scotland have benefited by drainage schemes. On lime, our deliveries in Scotland for the year 1940–41 amounted to 190,000 tons. For 1943–44, that tonnage is increased to 550,000 tons. Since the beginning of 1943, 18 new limestone grinding plants have been established or arranged for construction in Scotland, involving a total tonnage of 172,500 tons per annum, or almost the entire total of deliveries we had in the year 1940–41. Regarding livestock and milk, our dairy cattle increased by nine per cent. since 1939. The proportion of cattle in the special and grade A categories in Scotland had risen from 82 per cent. in 1941, to 89 per cent. in 1943—a very considerable and gratifying increase. In Scotland, 25 per cent. of our milk producers are producing tuberculin tested milk. Our T.T. pro- duction is 33 per cent. of our total supply—again a very gratifying figure.

How does that compare with England?

It is a very considerable increase over the English proportion, but I do not want to enter into comparisons of that kind.

Is testing still going on on the same standard?

On mechanisation, our Scots farm tractor equipment has risen from a pre-war figure of 6,250 to over 20,000—again a very considerable and very gratifying increase. In harvest labour, the following are the particulars of the casual workers enrolled in 1943: 2,393 senior school girls enrolled for the raspberry crop; 7,500 volunteers enrolled for the grain harvest, and 55,560 schoolchildren for the potato crop. There are expected to be increased numbers for the current harvest. All these arrangements are being made, where our school-children are concerned, in close association with the education authorities. Industrial volunteers, fortunately, are coming forward in large and in increasing numbers for the harvest. They are now 4,500, which is more than four times those recruited last year, and I am in hopes that we will be able to evolve this system of "holidays with pay" in certain of our industries on a voluntary basis in the post-war years.

We in Scotland are a nation of food exporters—A remarkable fact. The total United Kingdom food production—I beg my hon. Friends to note these figures—is estimated to be 22,500,000 tons, excluding fish. Of that 22,500,000 tons, we in Scotland produce 14 per cent. On the basis of the Ministry of Food's international investigations and calculations—that we consume 990 pounds' weight of food per man, woman and child—it follows that we in Scotland feed ourselves, and export nearly a million tons in oats, beef, sheep and potatoes, and, I can add, 150,000 tons of fish. These are remarkable figures.

But they may expand.

I hope to see the day when they will. Most of the leaders of our Scottish agricultural industry are naturally concerned about the long-term prospect—prices, markets, security against the dumping of foreign surplusses at non-economic prices and so on. Milk and livestock have, therefore, already been given guaranteed prices for four years—that is, until 1948. The future prospects in cereals and potatoes are now being discussed with the leaders of industry. Meanwhile, prices are to be reviewed in February every year. What other system of price arrangement will obtain in the years that are to be, I will not venture to prophesy. It may be that import boards regulating the inflow of imported potatoes to the absorptive capacity of our markets will be provided, but whatever may be the method of price-fixing for producers, I, personally, very much hope that we shall pay far more attention than we have hitherto done to the nutritional requirements of our people, by that means assuring a tremendous expansion in our home market. We need not wait upon decisions about international trade, quotas or the like. We in Scotland are beginning—hesitatingly, tentatively, but beginning—to pursue experiments in the way of instructing our next generation of housewives upon the most attractive methods of cooking our own Scottish basic products. The domestic science courses in the schools and the cinema screen are good avenues to the new nutrition and to the stabilisation of our home production in our fields, and on our hills and our coasts.

It was, the Committee may remember, the Lanarkshire school milk experiment in 1930 which formed and still forms to-day the basis of our great national school milk consumption. There was also a rather remarkable experiment, to which, unfortunately, insufficient public attention was given, in Scotland at all events, of a method of disposing of surplus potatoes at Bishop Auckland in Durham, and the Empire Marketing Board away back in 1929 by a propaganda effort, increased threefold the weekly sale of select Scots graded and marked sides of beef in the London market. The resultant effect upon price was immediate. I certainly do not think that the possibilities of organised selling by home producers in our home market have even been seriously considered, and anything that I can do—and I am happy to say that I know I have the heartiest concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in England in this matter—to stimulate discussion for the better marketing of our primary products and for the disposal of surpluses in such a way that they will not ruin the producers, will be done.

If I may express a purely personal point of view, the one serious handicap to a long-term guarantee of stability and assured prices in industry—and I am all for it—is a widespread fear that a great part of any assistance given to agriculture, may disappear in land speculation, and that unjust and unwarranted rent-raising may absorb part—only part—of what the nation would be willing to see devoted to an increase in agricultural well-being. It is not only here and there that a landlord may seek to extract rents beyond any reasonable figure of recompense for his outlays on farm buildings, for example, but do not let us forget the owner-occupier who may capitalise his guaranteed prices, and sell out to needy and anxious buyers at greatly enhanced figures. That certainly happened in the boom period immediately following the last war, and I have already evidence that there is again a beginning of that sort of thing. No fewer than 23 per cent. of our Scottish tenancies are held by owner-occupiers, and when we get to the larger farmers of over 300 acres, the proportion of owner-occupiers rises to 38 per cent. I want to prevent to-day owners-occupiers from capitalising any assistance given to agriculture, and selling that assistance to needy purchasers. I venture to express the opinion that sooner or later, Land Court machinery of some kind——

Nationalise the land.

I am dealing with prices at the moment. Land Court machinery of some kind, even if the State should own the land, will require to be used to prevent exploitation, either in rent increases or in selling price increases. I do not for a moment dispute the necessity of ensuring a just return to every section of the industry for any buildings, equipment or any other service rendered. Indeed, there are instances where the inadequacy of farm buildings is simply due to the fact that no one now is likely to provide the capital without being assured of an adequate return. If farm buildings are to be improved, if the status and standing of the agricultural worker is to be improved, and there is to be a development of amenity in our greatest industry, then a just price must be paid for the product, but let us see to it that the just price reaches the right person. I have said that there are great and practically unexplored methods of developing the home market for the home producers, but the speculator, the re-grater and the exploiter require to be prevented from harassing this great industry With their exactions.

May I say a word about the one section of our agricultural industry where conditions have not been satisfactory, and that is, hill sheep farming? As the Committee knows, we appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh on 20th November, 1941. That committee reported on 13th December, 1943, and we published its report on 10th January, 1944. Since then, all the hill sheep interests have had an opportunity of discussing among themselves the implications of that report. They sent me on 29th March a memorandum giving me their considered views. I have met their representatives to consider and to discuss that memorandum. They accept, in the main, the ordered programmes of improvement recommended in the report but they disagree with the proposed scheme of disposing Of surplus store lambs. Instead, they put forward a proposal for a subsidy on wedder lambs retained on farms. I have also had a memorandum within the past few days from the Land and Property Federation, indicating their general approval of the main recommendations of the report. But howsoever it is settled, it is clear that the problem of the disposal of store lambs surplus to feeders' requirements in any given year is one of the key problems of this industry. In years of large lamb crops the surplus ought not be the means by which prices are battered down to non-economic levels.

The Balfour of Burleigh Committee made a recommendation as to one method by which this ruinous process can be avoided, and a bottom fixed in the producers' market prices. The industry itself now suggests an alternative method that they think will settle this problem. This method we are now examining in detail with representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and with the hill sheep interests, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and I are now discussing the other major question referred to in the Burleigh report, the recommendation for a wool marketing board. I am hopeful, however, that by amicable arrangement with the Forestry Commission some of the most depressed hill sheep areas and farms will be put to forestry purposes and part of the hill sheep industry problem, thereby automatically solved.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Forestry Commissioners are likely to be difficult?

Not perhaps unduly difficult. There are still areas of deer forests reported upon by the Land Court as suitable for grazing sheep and cattle, where sheep and cattle have not, so far, been provided. Last month, a rough preliminary estimate, of the return shows that the present stocking of the deer forests amounts to 127,000 sheep, and 4,000 cattle, but there are still vacant acres for 72,000 sheep and 3,000 cattle. In 1939, I requested the executive committees in the Highland areas to get more use made of the grazing resources of suitable deer forests where the owner was willing to negotiate lets or longer leases to stock owners. The committees were asked to do everything in their power to promote these arrangements; failing that, the committees were invited to make recomendations that I should take possession under the Defence Regulations of these forests for the purpose of letting the grazing to suitable applicants. The committees were informed that I would be ready to take possession of any suitable forest, which could not be put to full productive use by agreement with the owners. We have already taken possession of eight deer forests under these Regulations, covering 169,000 acres. Four of them are managed by the agricultural executive committees on behalf of the department; three by direct management of the Department of Agriculture; one has been let. They are now all grazing cattle and sheep. One of them is at Torosay in Mull, where we took possession in June, 1941. The stocks now numbers 3,600 wedders and 80 cattle. The wool clip alone, in two years has been sold for £1,120. We have made improvements in fences, repaired buildings, cut bracken, drained the land and, notwithstanding this expenditure, the financial return on that particular forest showed a surplus of £1,000 for the whole period of management.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the land was taken over under Defence Regulations. Does that mean it will be handed back to the owner at the end of the war if he wishes to take it?

Not necessarily; and, in any case, if it was handed over, it would be with compensation to the State. I do not think the hon. Lady need be worried about that aspect of this problem. I am not arguing at all in favour of centralised management in the use of these deer forests; I am merely saying that there are instances where the forests, or part of them, can be put to productive use, and I am sure that the agricultural executive committees will do everything in their power to see to it that recommendations are forthcoming in suitable cases. All these great experiments and ventures in land, in increased tractor equipment, in agricultural co-operation and consultation, in practical demonstration and advice, in improved yield and efficiency, surely ought not to be allowed to lapse or disappear with the war but, should be extended and developed, to provide added wealth and better nutrition to the nation, and a more adequate livelihood and recompense to our primary producers.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I think everyone will agree that he has given the Committee a most able and comprehensive account of Scottish agricultural affairs. I think we all desire to congratulate him on his speech, and to wish him well in his great but not very enviable task of grappling with the many and complex problems which confront the Department of State of which he is head. But he is fortunate in having at his side two capable Joint Under-Secretaries and I think the Under-Secretary with whom we have to deal to-day has, if I may say so, made it his job to get about the country, to go amongst his farmers, and to get under their skins. In this way I think he has come to appreciate their manifold difficulties. I know that they appreciate what he has done; I should say they are well served at the Scottish Office and I see no reason why anyone should withhold credit where credit is due.

While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I could not help looking back along the road which we have travelled. I believe that this battle of the land will go down in history as one of the great victories of this war. In fact, to say that a miracle has been enacted is no overstatement, if we recall that in the period between the last war aria this, in Scotland alone, cultivation was disappearing at the rate of 1,000 acres every year. Every year there were 100 fewer farms and crofts in Scotland, and every year 1,000 workers were leaving the land. It seems only yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, had to be taken up to Aberdeenshire to see the barren and derelict oat areas up and down that great county. Finally, when the curtain rose on this war, very few people seem to appreciate that 17,250,000 acres, more than half of the total cultivable acres of Britain, were lying in permanent grass, much of which were in a state of semidereliction—ditches choked, hedges uncut, rushes flourishing over arable land. That was the pre-war picture. Contrast that with the conditions to-day. In spite of an acute shortage of labour, in spite of the curtailment of imports of fertilisers and feeding-stuffs, and in spite of the great effort required to bring back thousands of acres of derelict land to cultivation, we find that the farming country as a whole—I am speaking on Great Britain figures, because I do not know what is the Scottish proportion—is producing three-quarters of the food we eat. Our agricultural output is the highest of any agricultural country in the world and two and a half times that of the German farmer. I suggest that that is a pretty good story, and that the right hon. Gentleman has shown that Scotland has played a worthy part in it, for our production per acre, except for sugar beet, which is less, and for oats, which is the same, is in every case higher than that of our English friends.

Although the struggle to maintain our position as the greatest quality producers of livestock in the world has been difficult, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) knows, and at times even desperate, because of the Government's policy, which ever since this war began has definitely discouraged quality, especially in beef, we have succeeded in holding the field, holding the field in crop production and in beef production and in quality milk. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, 33 per cent, of our total gallonage production is tuberculin-tested, against six per cent. South of the Border. Here I welcome the recent announcement regarding the attested herds scheme, and would like to press that it should now be carried to its logical conclusion by transferring the responsibility for the administration of the Scottish end of the scheme to where it should be, which is in the Department in Edinburgh. It is nonsense to deal with the problem of animal health in Scotland from Whitehall, and note ought to be taken of that fact.

I would also ask the Under-Secretary if he would clear this point about which there seems to be some difficulty. Does the attested herd scheme cover beef cattle as well as dairy cattle? I have heard "Yes" and "No" and I do not know which is correct. The right hon. Gentleman referred to milk, and here I would raise only one point, and that is that since the war began there has been a little confusion in the minds of the public in regard to milk. The Scottish Milk Marketing Board's figures are 31 per cent. higher as regards the sale of liquid milk than they were before the war. The lesson which we learn from that is that when milk is cheap people will buy it. The shortage to-day is not due to under production but to an overwhelming expansion of consumption, which I hope will continue, Looking at these facts I suggest one is justified in saying that the battle of the land has been well fought, and I would go further by saying, as a farmer myself, that our success has been due in no small measure to the co-operation of everybody concerned in this effort—the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, our War Agriculture Executive Committees and last, but not least, the farmers and the farm workers, and among the workers I would include the land girls and all the volunteers who have come out from the cities to work. All have played their full part in what has been a great combined operation—a mass attack against starvation.

Because of the restriction which we Scottish Members impose upon ourselves in Debate it is not possible in the space of 15 minutes to tackle a subject so vast, so technical and so fundamental as agriculture. We are now in the fifth year of the war, with our agricultural machine pretty well run in and running steadily in top gear. The Secretary of State pointed out that there have not been many questions upon agriculture, and that is not surprising after the machine has been run in for five years, and I do not propose to raise many questions of detail which could be dealt with through other channels. I should like to address myself a little later to other things, but before doing that I suggest that it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could give us a little more guidance in regard to this year's harvest labour. The Secretary of State mentioned some figures, but I am not quite satisfied about the position, because, as we all know, the soldiers have gone away and the farmers in my part of the world are a little worried about the future position in regard to volunteer labour, the position in regard to Irish labour for the potato harvest and the arrangements made respecting school children. If he could tell us what he has succeeded in doing in this direction I am sure the Committee would be grateful.

The other point which I regard as of immediate importance is in regard to the future prospects for our tillage programme. If the Under-Secretary could give us some indication of whether or not the 1945 tillage programme is to be relaxed we should be much obliged. Our land to-day has lost a little of its fertility. I do not think it has lost a very great deal, but it has lost some, and is showing signs of strain. A great deal of it is becoming dirty, and there is no question that it is badly needing a rest, and I hope that the Department will find it possible this year to relax somewhat their tillage programme. Moreover, if we are to turn our attention, as we ought, to our livestock production we shall have to release some more land to grass. On our marginal farms there should be a definite turn towards the proper function of those farms, which is stock rearing. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can say something along those lines. There is no reason why we should adopt a hush-hush attitude on the question of crop production. Farmers have to plan ahead, and it is the future with which they are concerned, and about which I should like to say a word.

A few months ago there appeared a pamphlet published by the Tory Reform Committee called "The Husbandman Waiteth." I am not a member of that Committee. I cannot say that apart from the attractive pictures in it and the intriguing title I found the report contained anything very original. It seemed to me to go along rather familiar lines. But the title was certainly well chosen, and if my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Wedderburn) were here I would compliment him on it. It struck me straight away to ask: What is it that the husbandman is waiting for? I was forced to look up my Bible to see the text, and I came to the conclusion that it was the precious fruits of the earth referred to in James V, 7. But there is something else which he is looking for. At this moment he is looking for a post-war policy and he has certainly "had long patience for it." I do not suppose the Under-Secretary can add very much to what the right hon. Gentleman has said in that connection, and I say that because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture pales at the mere mention of post-war policy, having told us in fact at that Box that he was under instructions not to speak about it. Therefore, it may be a little unfair to ask the Under-Secretary to answer this question, but it is certainly what the husbandman is waiting for.

He is beginning to wonder, and not without reason, whether the seed which was sown a long time ago and which seemed to be springing up so promisingly has not, after all, fallen on stony ground. If it has why not say so and be done with it, because agriculture learned long ago how to swallow its medicine? It is high time we had some more guidance as to the future. Of course, we have had the recent declaration of Government policy in regard to live stock prices up to 1948. That was a welcome announcement, probably the most important announcement yet made by the Government, because they had not made any before. It certainly allows the farmer to plan some distance ahead, but when an hon. Member for one of the divisions in the North of England, I think the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), intervened in a Debate the other day upon food, and said that farmers should be grateful, in my view he went too far, because I think he had forgotten that one of the few things we can be certain about when this war is over is that we shall face a world shortage of animal products. Occupied Europe alone has lost 11,000,000 cattle, 12,000,000 pigs and 11,000,000 sheep, and these losses have to be replaced. On top of that the Argentine, because of abnormal war demands, has suffered a reduction of 568,000 head since 1941, and has now become worried about the excessive slaughter of cows.

Facing a world shortage of animal products, and especially meat, it is no wonder the Government can give a guarantee up to 1948. If they did not prices would sky rocket. The weakness of the plan is that it is too short, because obviously you cannot base a livestock policy on a four-year guarantee, and that is a question to be considered not only from the point of view of Scotland but for the whole of Britain. We are greatly in need of guidance as to the direction which expansion should take in Scotland. In the recent Debate on the Vote for the Ministry of Food the hon. Member for East Aberdeen and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member fat Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) indulged, a little facetiously I thought, in a sparring match about wheat and sugar beet. I am not going to enter into that dispute, but the right hon. and gallant Member was thinking in terms of food shortages and the hon. Member for Aberdeen thought he was talking about postwar agricultural policy; but I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen when he said that we cannot have a policy based upon wheat and sugar. The Wheat Act of I930 was a great technical success but that was all. It did nothing to solve our farming problem. It only enlarged the wheat acreage by two per cent. of our total of crops and grass and it ended up by ruining the oat growers of Aberdeenshire.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that 80 per cent. of Scotland's output and nearly 70 per cent. of England's prewar agricultural output was derived from livestock and livestock products. Out of Scotland's total, £41,000,000, beef was an easy first at £10,750,000, milk and dairy produce came second at £8,250,000, sheep and lambs, third, at just over £8,000,000. Potatoes and oats, of which we hear so much, important as they are, fell far short of the figures for livestock even when taken together. Therefore, it is obvious to me that what we need first and foremost for Scotland is a livestock policy. After all, livestock is what Scotland is best suited for and what our farmers are most skilled in. Hon. Members who represent Aberdeenshire constituencies will have noticed when they have been in that county during the past few months how their fine quality cattle are gradually disappearing. Why? Because of the great switch over to milk. I do not think that is a bad thing, but the tendency has spread up to Aberdeenshire and is showing itself in a vast deterioration in the quality of the cattle in the foremost county of Britain. That is a serious position. We cannot live on milk alone in Scotland, and the livestock side of agriculture has been completely out of balance ever since this war began, and in my view it will not be put right until the wide gap between milk and beef is closed. It is closing now, but it will not be properly closed until there is a real effective premium upon the well bred quality steer calf. If there is not such a premium the farmer will not rear them. If we fail to attend to that in my view we shall be at the mercy of the Argentine and Eire when this war is over.

Something has been done to restore that position, but we do not seem to have any real plan. It is a plan which I should like to have discussed. I think we ought to have a separate Debate on this subject if it could be arranged, because it is clearly a very difficult question and one which is going to affect the small man. I say that because I believe economic milk production will be based upon the large milking unit, a unit of sufficient size to warrant modern machinery being introduced, a unit of not less than 30 cows, and even that may be too low. Now I cannot see an economic future for the beef producer unless he has a large turn-over. It will not do to turn out what we have been doing in the past. The small man may, therefore, be forced to turn his attention in some other direction, possibly calf rearing, but up to the moment we have had no guidance whatever on this subject.

In conclusion, I would say a word about what the right hon. Gentleman said regarding the Balfour Report. I had intended to go for him because he had not said anything in his speech, as I did not think he would refer to it, and therefore, I have to modify in some respects what I should otherwise have said. He is now discussing this very important document, and I think it is rather extraordinary that this House should not have had an opportunity of discussing it. We discussed the Forestry Report, and here is another Report, of a very able Committee, a most important document, and there has been no opportunity of discussing it and it is obviously impossible to do so to-day. This hill sheep industry is a vastly more important industry than many people imagine. Two-thirds of the entire surface of our country is mountain and heath, and, as I have tried to point out, the mutton and lamb produced from our hills are very nearly as important to Scotland as milk production. The Balfour Committee paint a gloomy picture of the hill sheep industry. They tell us that the fertility of the past has gone and that this industry will die a slow death from exhaustion unless State and industry combine to restore it. But they do not provide any magic carpet upon which the hill farmer can step which will whisk him off to more solid economic grounds. Some opportunity should be afforded Members of Parliament to express their opinions in regard to that Report before we get legislation, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that we have an opportunity of discussing the Report.

A Herring Bill was presented to Parliament the other day, but I suggest that herrings are not as important to Scotland. The output of mutton and lamb from the Scottish hills is three times the value of the herring, and so it is high time we looked into the question of our hill sheep industry. I believe that our 10,000,000 acres of hill land can be made more productive, and I say that speaking with a little practical experience of a pretty extensive enterprise. The Secretary of State is now building reservoirs for hydro-electric supplies; he ought also to build reservoirs of store cattle in the hills and glens of Scotland, and I suggest that he should now give a definite guarantee for ten years that the Hill Cattle Scheme which has worked so excellently should be continued. I cannot imagine anything that would encourage enterprise more than a guarantee that this scheme should be continued for that period.

With regard to what the hon. Member is saying about the encouragement of cattle on the upland pastures, a gentleman to whom I was speaking told me that the present rate of financial assistance is not sufficient having regard to the present price of store cattle.

I do not know that I would agree with what the hon. Member's friend said. I think the cattle scheme could be improved by way of a differentiation in favour of the home breeder. At the moment the Irishman greatly benefits. I should like to see Scottish animals, bred on our own hills, given discriminatory assistance in their favour, but apart from that I think the scheme is reasonably adequate though no doubt some would like a little more.

I have perhaps spoken rather too long, and I would end by saying that although we in Scotland cannot be accused of inefficiency in any way either in crop production or in milk or anything else I do recognise that we must press on hard towards increasing our efficiency. I have never been one to believe that agricultural survival lies along the road of old-fashioned ideas, and I believe that the future of our country in terms of agriculture will depend upon quality, and that is a good sound thing to depend upon. It will depend upon the quality of our livestock, the quality of our beef, the quality of our milk, mutton and lamb, and I suggest that it is time we had far more guidance as to the future than we have had up to date. I am sure that, given reasonable security, and also given an opportunity which in the past has been denied to us, Scottish agriculture will fulfil its obligations in peace as well as it has done in war.

When we come to deal in Committee with the Scottish Estimates for agriculture we feel that we are dealing with something that is fundamental, and I am sure that that thought has been borne out to-day by the Secretary of State himself in the fine review of the position which he gave us, and also in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden). I am not going to deal with the same points as have been dealt with by my hon. Friend who preceded me, but in passing I would say that he entered into a realm that it would be very difficult for anyone from this side of the Committee of the party to which I belong to follow, and that was to criticise an authoritative party statement and to approve of nothing except its title. One felt inclined when he was discussing that report, although commending its title, to ask "What's in a name?". The name does not matter so much; what matters is the policy that is propounded in the document. The Secretary of State gave us a very good picture and showed us also that he was not unaware of some of the dangers that beset the industry of agriculture. In a kind of parenthetic way he expressed his personal view that one of the greatest dangers was the possibility of exploitation of the prices for land by owner-occupiers and he indicated that he was on the alert to take every possible action, under the powers he has or may be given to check that particular tendency, which he said was already in evidence.

He made reference to the need for some sort of rent court or land court. We have the opportunity at the present time of seeing the Scottish Land Court working very effectively. We are hearing more about it to-day that we heard in times gone by, and we reflect with pleasure that the present head of it is a former Member of this House who, as I think it is generally conceded, is doing very well as Chairman of the Land Court. He has certainly devoted a great deal of attention and interest to the work that lies to his hand in his important office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also referred to the powers he has and the way he has used them to fill up vacancies for the grazing of deer forests. We are glad that the matter is being tackled as it is being done. It was good to hear how very successful my right hon. Friend had been in taking over some of these deer forests, notably in the Island of Mull, where, as he showed us, an immense improvement had been made.

My right hon. Friend also recited big figures about Scottish production in one way and another, and it struck me that he might also have said that, as Secretary of State, he is the biggest agricultural landowner in Scotland. The acreage in the ownership of the State now must be nearly 500,000 acres—a considerable portion of the agricultural land in Scotland. On that land we have, for nearly 3o years now, been building up a new body of agricultural workers on Government holdings. We have been establishing and developing people who have become specialists and experts in many directions. On these holdings pig-keeping, poultry-keeping, dairying, fruit production, bee - keeping, market gardening, and production under glass have been carried on, as well as the growing of cereal and root crops and the raising of livestock. The people on these holdings, it can be said, have made good, and this Scottish development under the of the State is a development that must not stop. The opportunities for holders must be increased. Before the war, whatever the position is now—and I believe it is still about the same—there was still a large number of unsatisfied applications for holdings in Scotland. What chances have these people to develop? What chances will their sons, who have been trained with them, have after the war? Normally, a farmer or owner-occupier of a farm looks forward to his son following in his footsteps. If he has a family of sons he tries to get farms for them and put them in possession. That kind of succession should be encouraged by the Department of Agriculture.

To enable my right hon. Friend to answer these questions and to decide upon the proper policy in matters of that kind, I would like to suggest that he, personally, should get down to the problem in a practical way. I know how busy he is and how very precious his time is, and that much of what he has to decide must necessarily come to him secondhand. But in this matter I want him to endeavour to get first-hand knowledge, and not to depend upon recommendations from his Department, however carefully prepared. I am not saying anything against the officials at St. Andrew's House, because I and my constituents have found them very helpful indeed, but I ask him to get away from the people with red tape in their hands and red ink on their fingers, and go among the practical people with red soil on their boots so that he may learn things at first-hand. I am sure that the technical staff of his Department would be able to put him into touch with these people and that they would advise him on what should be his policy in future, in relation to matters of agricultural interest, in many directions. The agricul- ture that is being pursued on these holdings now has many facets and is not confined to any one branch. My right hon. Friend will get from these people real guidance in dealing with the problems which must be faced. If he would take the advice I am giving him now, he would find how very valuable is the work of the technical people in his Department, and he would find how popular they are with the many people who are holders of land under the Department of Agriculture. It is not a question of looking at things as a stranger. I have found that the technical people in his Department have been very much alive to the needs of these holders, and that their advice has been very gratefully accepted.

The Minister would find grievances on some of these holdings. For instance, lie would find some farm buildings, not houses, in a dilapidated condition. He would find dry privies instead of proper sanitary accommodation. He would find roads which needed repair. Where a road is serving a number of holders, I have had more than one experience of the fact that these holders are willing and anxious that the job of making the road good should be done in a thorough fashion. They do not mind the cost being spread among them by an addition to their rents. My right hon. Friend would be asked about the position with regard to prices after the war, and in particular, whether the £10 per acre subsidy for potatoes is to continue. He would also get problems put to him that do not come strictly within his own purview. He would find that injustice is felt by Scottish growers of tomatoes and strawberries about the way in which the English price is the ruling price, so that they do not have an opportunity of a good price at the beginning of the sale of these crops, in the same way that the English producer has. In respect of tomatoes and strawberries, it is well known that the quality of the Scottish product is much better than that of the English product. My right hon. Friend would find criticism, again, in comparison with England, at the fact that glass houses used for the production of such crops are not rated in England, whereas they are rated in Scotland. Holders feel that this is an unjust burden upon them. I cannot go into' this question at length to-day without being out of Order. I simply use it as an illustration of the kind of thing that would be put to my right hon. Friend, if he took my advice and went among these holders.

But my right hon. Friend would not find only complaints; he would find great satisfaction among holders and their wives at the good conditions under which they live. It is not many weeks since I met the wife of a holder who told me how, on getting up in the morning, she looked out of her windows and saw in the distance a ring of hills. I was about to say to her "It is enough to make you sing the 121st Psalm," when she herself said she felt like saying:

'"I to the hills wi:1 lift mine eyes"

which, as everyone knows, is the I21st Psalm. So I say that my right hon. Friend would not find his journeying throughout these holdings in any way depressing. It would encourage him to see the splendid use to which the land is being put by these people, who I claim are the pick of the agricultural community in Scotland. I am urging that these opportunities should be extended after the war. The Secretary of State might ask, "Where is the land to come from?" He has indicated one source of increase. There is land being used for aerodromes which will probably come back to us after the war is over, and once again became agricultural land. There are the farms which have been taken over during the war, because they had not been properly farmed. They have been improved. It is not likely that the previous occupiers will desire to pay for the improvements which have been carried out during the time that the farms have been out of their possession. That is land which might be used in the way I recommend. Other land must be purchased, no doubt.

It is clear that some holdings will be lost by our post-war housing development and the holders will require to be placed on new land. Holders thus dispossessed, it seems to me, should have a first claim on the new holdings. Following upon them will be the fully skilled ex-Service men, the sons of the fine new type of agriculturist that I have mentioned, men with experience and the capital available, who would carry on the succession to which I have referred. Then we come to other experienced men such as farm grieves, like those who have established these holdings in past years, men who know how to run holdings whether large or small. Then we should require to provide for men with no agricultural experience, who come back from the war. It would be well to place such men with the best of the present holders, and train them on these farms if they were anxious to go in for land work. In co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, who are setting themselves to train men after the war, here is a realm in which they could be trained, not necessarily disabled men but men who want to take up agriculture in the years that lie ahead. After they had six months' training, the farmer whom they were helping would probably be willing to pay part of their wages, and at the end of a year they would be earning full wages. Then any question of training subsidy would cease. Later on, these men would probably want to remain with the people who had employed them, and make a permanency for themselves in this kind of work. It would be necessary, therefore, to provide for them and their wives living on or near the holdings on which they were working. That would encourage them to remain on the land, and they in turn would probably want to take up holdings of their own, and we should have the satisfaction of knowing that they had been properly trained and were efficient for using the land as holders.

These measures would result in a better and more contented agricultural population, and a more efficient and prosperous agricultural industry and would make the best of the land at our disposal. To achieve this, many things are needed. The first is a proper water supply. Then there is the need for laying on electrical supplies. I know cases of people who make their own electricity, in order to heat incubators, and who are getting concerned about the possible breakdown of the plant that they have established. It seems wrong that electricity should be made in a small way, to serve the needs of one holder who goes in for poultry breeding. The apprehension of the individual holder is understandable because the breakdown of his electricity-producing machinery would result in the loss perhaps of 1,000 or more hatching eggs—a very serious loss to him. It would be for the Department to lay on the electricity, because it would be too much to expect that the holder should stand-in, for the transformers necessary in dealing with the high-tension cables which run through different parts of the country. I believe that if supplies were provided, the holder would readily pay for them; there would be no loss and in the long run it would cost nothing at all to the Department.

I have only one other point, in regard to harvest labour. I believe this is a very valuable means of increasing the labour given to farmers at harvest time and I should like to see it continued after the war. There are hostels, big houses which have been taken over, and which will never be tenanted by the owners again. There are huts and camps which could be used by people who find their holiday, not in idleness but in another kind of work. They come from the towns and work in the countryside during harvest time, and find it all to the good of their health and it would be making a real contribution to the harvest labour in the years after the war. We have rather made a "stunt" of it during the war but I believe it could be made a permanent feature of agricultural activity. I commend to the Secretary of State these suggestions, tentative though they are, and I believe that along the lines I have indicated we could make a real contribution to the further improvement of Scottish agriculture.

I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the hon. Member's speech. He will forgive me if I do not follow him in the flights of fancy that he has taken. I want to address myself to some of the points which have been made by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). Again we all listened with very great interest to the brief but comprehensive survey that the right hon. Gentleman gave of agricultural affairs, but I should like to take him up with regard to one or two of the points that he raised in connection with the land system of Great Britain as a whole. He was speaking about the possible, and, indeed, I think he went so far as to suggest the actual, speculation that was going on in agricultural land in Scotland. He spoke also about rent increases. I think that he must agree that, on reflection, so far as farms on large estates are concerned, there has been practically no increase of rent in these war years. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he has any instances in mind I shall be happy to hear of them.

I made it perfectly clear that the thing has not gone very far yet and that there were any number of owners of agricultural land who were playing the game. Indeed, I go so far as to say that some of the farms are under-rented. That does not get over the difficulty that has arisen when we get farms during the war jumping in rent from £700 to £1,100, and when we get increases of rent of £500, £400 and so on, all of which are before us now. I beg of my hon. Friend, and those who support him, to believe me that it is in the best interests of agriculture that I made the remarks that I made to-day.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the figures he has given, and I say at once that I am in whole-hearted agreement with him regarding such cases. The figures he quoted are shameful and they will be a revelation to the Committee, and to the public of Scotland and Great Britain as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say something about speculation in agricultural property, and I take it that what he said about the landlord system with regard to rents in general will also apply to his remarks on possible speculation on agricultural land. Then he suggested that owner-occupiers who had bought their farms in the past few years had been going in for this kind of speculation. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any instances, and I do not ask him to give any now, but he suggested that owner-occupiers had gone in for the same thing after the last war. The right hon. Gentleman will know better than I do, because he has lived longer and has had considerably more experience of public affairs in Scotland. He wrote in the past an illuminating book on land tenure in Scotland, and he will be aware that about 1920 there were very few owner-occupiers compared with the number that exist to-day. I was not aware at that time that owner-occupiers were going on the principle of "cashing in" as soon as they could on the farms which they were obliged in many cases to buy very dearly. I am delighted to have had the right hon. Gentleman's revealing figures of these astonishing and scandalous increases or rent.

The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) ejaculated "Nationalise the land" while the Secretary of State was speaking. The right hon. Gentleman gave no reply, but I remember very well a Private Member's Motion which he introduced about 1938 on the question of the nationalisation of the land. He made it clear then, when he had not the responsibilities which he possesses to-day, that he would never be a party to anything in the nature of unfair appropriation of land without due compensation to the owners. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman to-day, with his added responsibilities, will be as firm as he was in his speech on the Private Member's Motion with regard to this question. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there had been an absence of Parliamentary Questions from those representing agricultural constituencies in Scotland. The hon. Member for West Perth took him up and said that that did not mean we were all pleased and that everything in the garden was lovely, but rather that those representing agricultural constituencies had that common sense and sense of responsibility with regard to Questions which Mr. Speaker mentioned at the end of Question Time to-day.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Perth spoke about the hill sheep industry. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed for details about how the Forestry Commissioners had reacted to the Governmental policy of putting sheep on lands which, for many years, were cleared. The right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to give details with regard to his experiences with the Forestry Commission, but he gave revealing figures about what has been done with some of the deer forests, about which, no doubt, the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) will say something when he addresses the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's figures suggested that the restocking of the deer forests had been a great success, and I hope that it has been. I am whole-heartedly in support of his policy there. He did not tell us how many ewes the Government had put on to some of these large areas and how many were there now. If the Under-Secretary could give us a little information on the matter it would be interesting. The hon. Member for West Perth stressed the necessity of the House discussing the Balfour of Burleigh Report and I think it is desirable that we should do so if possible before the Summer Adjournment. I am not very hopeful, but you have to ask for things in this House ad nauseam, and make up your mind that if you do not get them, it will not be for want of trying.

I was talking yesterday with two big hill sheep farmers. One of them, a lady friend of mine, farms 12,000 acres of hill land and she told me that without the subsidy—which she does not like—she could not make ends meet. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that in the South of Scotland, with its sturdy sense of independence and the blood of the Covenanters, subsidies are not palatable means of making ends meet.

Hear, hear.

I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs in that sentiment.

Does the hon. Member agree with his lady friend that carrying on is much more important, than maintaining the spirit of Scottish independence?

I am afraid I have not time to develop that point now. The other hill-sheep farmer, who is also in a big way, re-echoed the sentiments that the lady had expressed. He went further, and said that if things went on as they were going he thought that he and his fellow hill-sheep farmers would shortly be in a position of having to come to the Government and ask to be placed as salaried managers on the land they occupied. The sheep farming lands vary very much in quality, and I would ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, who has a great knowledge of Scotland and has been through most of the hills and glens of the Southern Uplands, if he does not realise the differences in quality between, say, the sheep lands of Roxburgh and Selkirk and those in Galloway. The men from the Border country will not look at them. Let us not forget that the costs of production are the same for all, whatever the quality of the land. That is why I hope the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him in the Scottish Department of Agriculture will realise how hard it is upon hill-sheep farmers on the poorer quality of hill farms.

The hon. Member for West Perth stressed the unsatisfactory level of beef prices. I ventured to interrupt him regarding a statement made to me by a big beef producer at Castle Douglas with regard to the present rate of financial assistance to cows on upland pastures. The hon. Gentleman did not agree that the case was quite so bad on that one point, but, speaking generally, he is in complete agreement with me as to the serious position in which beef producers find themselves. I do not know whether I can go all the way with the hon. Gentleman with regard to what he said about the beef producer in the years after the war. We have switched over, as the hon. Member himself said, to dairy production and are producing milk in quantities greater than ever before. I do not imagine for one moment that the hon. Member would suggest that we should switch back again in a few years' time.

I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that if we go over completely to milk production in a beef-producing country like Scotland, we shall have everybody producing milk. We must have balance, so that we do not get a movement which causes adversity.

I am delighted to hear the hon. Member say that. I never intended to suggest that I was entirely for milk production at the expense of the producer of beef. Very far from it; but as I listened to the hon. Member I thought he was suggesting an unbalanced policy in the years to come—that he was rather suggesting that we should suddenly go in for decreasing our milk production. Surely he will agree with me that what we have to urge the Government to do in the post-war period—which we hope will not be very far away—is to consider the necessity of adjusting the balance and of giving, by way of an assured market to the beef producers, an incentive to provide the quality finished article which he said so much about. I hope the hon. Gentleman is in complete agreement with me on that, and I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman, and those associated with him, will take note of what has been said on this very difficult and thorny question. It is a matter which is greatly exercising the minds of many of those in Scotland who in the past have gone over entirely to the livestock side of the farming industry. Those are the two points in the Scottish agricultural industry—the hill sheep industry and the beef-production side of farming—which are giving many of those in the industry very serious cause, indeed, for thought and anxiety.

With regard to dairying, I have no strictures whatever to pass on the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry, but I would like to say, with regard to Scottish farming as a whole—and it is germane to what the right hon. Gentleman himself said about the absence of criticism from agricultural Members in the last few months—that farmers are seriously disturbed with regard to prices. Let me put it this way. We know the storm which the Minister of Agriculture had to encounter in January from Members representing English rural constituencies because they thought that the Government s intentions with regard to keeping the rate of prices commensurate with the rate of costs had not been fulfilled. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a very heavy increase in Scotland recently in the cost of production, as far as wages are concerned. We were all delighted to have higher wages and I have always stood, as has also the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs, for high wages. I stand for them to-day, and shall continue to stand for them, but I must point out that the Government have given no indication whatever that they are going to adjust prices in connection with the increase of wages.

I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will be in a position to lift the curtain a little on this. I do not suppose for a moment that he will, but if he can, and does, I shall be delighted. I for one listened to the speech of the Secretary of State as a whole with very great interest and profit. I join with the hon. Member who urged that the earliest possible indication should be given of the Governmental long-term policy with regard to the farming industry, because there can be no doubt that there is an idea at the backs of the minds of farmers in Great Britain that their fate in the coming years will be the same as that which overtook their brethren in the years after the last war, when the Corn Production Act was dropped, and when, as we all know—whatever our fiscal or political views may be—the farming industry in this country reached a most deplorable position. As I have said, I have no hope that the Under-Secretary will be in a position to say much to-day, but I hope the Government are taking note of this matter and will shortly be in a position to allay our fears, and the anxieties of agriculturists generally, on this matter. I am delighted that we have a new recruit in the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who is doing such gallant work from the Labour Benches in stressing the necessity that agriculture must never again be allowed to lapse into the deplorable state which it occupied between the two wars and, as we are fortified with that very strong and unexpected support, I feel sure it will go a long way towards doing something with regard to this most serious and pressing matter.

Probably no Debate in this Committee has so many facets as a Debate on agriculture. In the past three-quarters of an hour we heard discussed a dozen different phases of the subject. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) dwelt very largely on the future state of agriculture, a matter which concerns me very much too. The last speaker dwelt on several points, such as sheep and the possibility of nationalization——

A good idea, and you will have to support that.

In nationalisation, there is a possible solution and one which has been indicated in the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England, who are, probably, the largest holders of agricultural land in the country. They set aside 16.1 per cent. of their rentals for maintenance of those things which a proprietor has to maintain in connection with farming. They set aside a further 16.3 per cent. for the purpose of improvement. In other words, they set aside something like 32.4 per cent. of the rentals for the purpose of putting it back into the farms by way of maintenance and improvement.

That is what they put back?

Yes, those are the figures of what they put back. In thinking over the matter, as far as Scotland was concerned, I came to the conclusion and recommended to my friends that if one-third of the rentals were hypothecated—not paid direct to the proprietors, but put into a separate account and spent on maintenance and improvement—there would be no necessity for the consideration of nationalisation.

Where is the rest of the 100 per cent.? The landlord does nothing with that.

The landlord gets 66⅔ after the 33⅓ is taken off. The amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners spend on their farms is 32.4 per cent., as I have already pointed out, and they, as proprietors, draw two-thirds. The bad landlord will have to spend that total sum of money, but the really good landlord who has kept his farm in first-class order—and there are good landlords as well as bad ones—will not require to do so. At the end of a lease, the money remaining in the hypothecated account can be refunded to the proprietor, as unspent money, to which he is entitled, because it was not spent on the farm. In the case of the bad proprietor, the whole 33⅓ per cent. will have been spent and, as a consequence, the farm will be kept in a first-class condition as are farms of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England. I have asked farmers, proprietors and others if a sum representing one-third of the total income was a reasonable figure, and I have been assured that it was an ample and fair figure to deduct and set aside. Therefore, if the Government wish to consider this matter and wish to avoid nationalisation, which has been recommended and which must come unless something of this kind is done, they must ensure that the bad proprietor properly maintains his farm. He is not necessarily bad in the normal sense of the word. In many cases the owner has not the money to spend and cannot afford the necessary maintenance.

Before the hon. Member leaves that point, I would like to point out that we are most anxious to relieve them of that burden.

It is only a burden on them up to one-third if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' figures are correct. Two-thirds of the rental remains free.

Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are model landlords? I have never heard that case put forward before.

They look after their farms remarkably well, up to the 32.4 per cent.

I was thinking more of their slum property.

That is an entirely different problem. I was referring to their agricultural land and, if a scheme of that sort were adopted, it would solve the problem of nationalisation and solve it, I think, in a very reasonable way. Indeed, I have been advised by many people that it is a reasonable suggestion.

Another matter to which reference has been made by previous speakers is hill sheep farming. Owing to circumstances over which I had no control I was prevented from hearing the speech of the Secretary of State. He referred to hill sheep being put upon land hitherto used as deer forests. Some time ago, I went to the trouble to estimate the position. It seemed to me that, judging from all the information I could find, there were nearly 3,500,000 acres in Scotland used for deer forests. Normally, but not invariably, there were no sheep on deer forests. A lot of people seem to think that sheep and deer do not get on well together, whereas it is well known that sheep and grouse do. The future estimates of what may be the extent of deer forest land are that it will be very much smaller. I estimate that it will be reduced to something like 1,500,000 acres; in other words, that 2,000,000 acres will have been set free for sheep, if necessary. Unfortunately, a great part of that land if not the whole of it will take a relatively small number of sheep.

In the Lowlands, the fertile lowlands, we can say there will be one sheep to an acre, whereas 10 acres of hill land will be required. As a consequence, no great accretion in the number of sheep will take place. I might reasonably draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the normal hill sheep area, the sheep have decreased enormously during the last 60 to 80 years. Apparently there are not now more than 60 per cent. on that land, of the sheep that were there 60 or 70 years ago. If the returns for all Scotland are examined, it will be found that the number of sheep has increased. The whole area where the decrease has taken place is about half the country. The rest of Scotland therefore must have been increasing at a much greater rate than the figures actually show, while, in the Highlands, the decrease has been at a much greater rate than is evident from the total figures.

The Hill Sheep Committee reported that something ought to be done to improve the quality of the pastures. There is a possibility of greatly improving them. Certain areas, relatively small, which will not amount to more than a few hundred acres, have been dealt with in respect of rough grasses and heather. They have been limed and possibly there has also been a slight addition of phosphates. When they have been so treated it is possible to keep far more sheep on them than before. One sheep owner told me that he dealt with 400 acres of that class of land; that he had scarified it or ploughed it, limed it and had added a little chemical manure, and that he was able now to keep three sheep where only one sheep was kept before. That might be a very fortunate case, but I do not think there is any reasonable doubt that the number of sheep in the Highlands could be doubled if the Government took the necessary steps to see that the work recommended by the Hill Sheep Committee was carried out.

It has been suggested that we ought to keep pressing for a Debate on the Hill Sheep Committee's Report. I hope that a Debate will take place and that I shall have the privilege of being called upon to speak upon the matter. Therefore, I will not deal with this subject any further, in view of the possibility of a Debate at an early date, but I will turn to a major point, touched on by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, namely, the future of farming. My hon. Friend referred to the holders, but he did not specify exactly what he meant by holders. I have in my constituency, as everybody knows, a great number of people called crofters, who are very small holders.

In Inverness-shire?

Yes. There are two classes. The crofters, and the holders or smallholders, must be dealt with in the same way by the Government in the immediate future, as my hon. Friend has suggested. But there is the other class, who keep the great farming area of the country from 50 to a maximum of about 1,000 acres in Scotland. They were referred to by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who spoke of the possibility of those people being put into a very bad position owing to wages being what is considered high at the present time. I do not think the wages are high in relation to the wages of other classes of the community. The agricultural worker is only now, for the first time as far as I know, being put into his proper position in relation to the rest of the community in so far as wages are concerned. I expect that the present high rate of wages may not continue——

They may be a lot higher.

Well, if so, then the value of money comes down. It may be that, in relation to the present value of money, the scale may be lower. I do not want to see the agricultural worker once again come down to the condition in which he formerly was. How is that to be avoided? It is obvious that the normal arable farmer of 50 acres and upwards is under two disabilities. The first is the compulsion to pay a standard rate of wages, and the second is the necessity of continuing to keep in cultivation the area that he has now in cultivation. If they have to do those two things, and if values drop and if, after the war and the interregnum period are over, subsidies vanish—I can well understand that subsidies must continue during the transition period—farmers will again be placed in a very parlous position. Cultivation in this country may go back as it did many years ago, indeed, since the last war, and farmers will find themselves in a very serious predicament. It is obvious that, in those circumstances, the Government must find other methods of increasing the money available to farmers for paying the rates of wages necessary to employ the requisite number of men to keep the present total of agricultural land under proper rotation.

In my view, the only way in which the Government can do that, is to arrange that, if farmers cultivate their land normally and properly, as inspectors of agriculture decide, and if they do not earn £3 an acre, the Government, instead of giving a general subsidy, will make up the difference between what they actually earn and £3. I am advised that, even in normal circumstances and in the bad times that occurred in the years between the wars, many farmers were able to carry on well. In other words, they were able to make some figure comparable with £3 an acre, and to subsist fairly well on it. There is no reason to expect that they will not be able to do the same thing in the future. That applies to the vast number of farmers on good land who will be able to continue to earn a living as they did in the past.

There will be a different situation for farmers on moderate or poorer land. There is a vast area of that class of land in Scotland, unfortunately, and in order to keep it under cultivation we shall have to say to the farmers that if they do not earn £3 per acre, after all their expenses are paid, the Government will find the balance. The National Farmers' Union wrote to me and said that this was bringing into the picture a new kind of inquisition into what the farmer is doing. I pointed out that that was not the case because at the present time the Inland Revenue authorities say to everybody who pays £100 rental and over, "You must produce your books so that we are satisfied as to what you are earning." But in the case of those who pay £100 of rental and under they say, "We charge you on three times the rental. We assume you earn three times the rental. If you object to that assumption produce your books and show that what you say is so."

What I am suggesting would form no new inquisition into what farmers are doing. It would be a simple clear matter, depending on what the Inland Revenue return showed, as to what amount they would get. But it would have a wonderful effect. I am informed by inspectors of agriculture that they would then be able to devote the whole of their time, or nearly the whole of it, to attending to farmers who were not earning that figure, that is, £3 an acre, and helping to lift them up to the stage at which they will be no burden to the State. There is the possibility, under a system of this kind, of an immense improvement in the agricultural value of the present low types of land, either moderate or marginal land, as it is normally called. If some system of this kind were carried out, it would be, from the Government's point of view, I am told, a great saving in money compared with the present expenditure. I can freely say that I have had a farmer come to me and say in private conversation, "I am ashamed of the money I have been getting." [Interruption.] He had been getting so much. He was on good land. In consequence he said he was ashamed of the money he was getting.

I suppose he took it.

The Minister of Agriculture, on a recent occasion, stated that he was aware of a great number of farmers who are doing extremely well under the present circumstances. Is there any reason why anybody should do extremely well out of the Government at the present time? Certainly people have to be carried, if they are unable to cope with their land, but there is no reason to pay them further sums beyond that. The people who require the help are the people on moderate and poor land, not necessarily the people on good land, and when one refers to good land that does not mean the size of the land. A man may have 600 acres and have a first-class farm and another man may have 60 acres of first-class land and have a first-class farm too. But two other men may have 600 acres of moderate or poor land and 60 acres of moderate or poor land respectively. The cost of cultivation in the cases I have given—sowing, reaping, and the other things required to produce a crop—is practically identical for each. Yet the Government give a larger figure to the man on good land because he gets more money per bushel or quarter on produce he takes out of the land.

I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland should consider very seriously some alteration in substitution for the subsidies which on all sides, it is agreed, will eventually drop. At the same time everybody is desperately keen that the agricultural workers' wages should be maintained at the level at which they are, and that the whole of the agricultural land of the country should be maintained in cultivation. My hon. Friend wanted still more cultivation if that were possible. I agree with him that wherever it is possible, we should cultivate still more, just as in the case of the hill sheep industry we should lime the land, and cut out the rough grass, in order to feed more sheep than we do now. If these things were done, the position of agriculture in Scotland would be very different for a future Minister, from what is the case today.

Hon. Members have properly used this occasion, which comes once a year, of raising agricultural matters of particular interest to us in Scotland. Indeed the Secretary of State took that line and avoided the more general case of the long-term agricultural, policy. He was right to do so, and I would make only one or two comments on his few remarks on that subject. I do not know if he noted, as I did, the other day—I hope he did—some remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on employment, in which he said:

"Of course we want to develop our agriculture. We have got to, because of our exchange conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1914, Vol. 401, c. 407].

That, I think, is true, and I hope the Secretary of State has cut that out, as I have done, for use on a future occasion, because it is not always that that kind of remark, of solicitude for agriculture, comes from the mouth of the Treasury.

All I would say on that point is that these long-term plans for agriculture will need decisions and agreements on a world level and an Empire level, and also on the level of this country. They will be a most complicated affair, and I hope that the Secretary of State, if he takes part in those negotiations, will do so on the basis that any plans into which we enter should secure, for this country at least, a level of output well in advance of anything we had between the wars, and that meanwhile, until we get absolutely working agreements, we should retain in our own hands the power to protect our own home producers, should the need arise. Pending world agreement, that seems to me to be absolutely essential.

I come to some of the particular matters which I should like to put to the Joint Under-Secretary. I take up the matter raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), the question of the marketing of strawberries and raspberries—perhaps a tactless thing to do in the South these days. It seems to me that the Scottish producer of strawberries is, put at a disadvantage compared with his competitors in England. It is possible for the producer in England, in the last weeks in May, or the early weeks in June, to get a good price for his table strawberries over a number of weeks. This can only be done by the Scottish grower for a minimum percentage of his crop, and by far the largest proportion of his crop has to be sold at prices which are fixed for the glut period of the English market. It is too late this season to help our producers in Scotland, and I do not quite know what is the machinery by which prices are fixed, but I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary if, next season, during the negotiations he would take particular notice of this question. It would be of the greatest help to our Scottish producers, if they could get better prices for a number of weeks. It is possible, I think, under regional price agreements. In the case of raspberries the difference in price is not as between England and Scotland, but between two regions in Scotland. The price is being fixed at something like 81s. per cwt. for the Angus area, while the prices in Lanarkshire are only some 72s. per cwt.

I hope the Noble Lord will not pursue this particular point too far, as the question of prices comes under another Ministry.

That is the information I am trying to extract from the Minister. This is a difference between two regions in Scotland, not between England and Scotland. There is no justification for it as far as I can see. Costs of production in Lanarkshire are just as high as in Angus, and the quality is just as good.

Is it not a fact that in fixing prices of this kind the Minister of Food must have regard to advice received from the Department of Agriculture in Scotland? They must to some extent advise the Minister. Surely it would be in Order to discuss that?

That may be so. Actually the fixing of prices is done, I am advised, by the Minister of Food, and while I did not want to stop the Noble Lord, I had to indicate that it would be unwise to carry the matter too far in case he went over the line into another Estimate and on to another Vote.

I quite see your point, Mr. Hall, and the hon. Member for Gor- bals (Mr. Buchanan) has expressed the point I was trying to make, that the Department comes into the negotiations. If my hon. Friend wants to be convinced about the quality of Lanarkshire raspberries and if he will meet me in a week or two, I think I can satisfy him.