I should like to add my appeal for a unanimous verdict in favour of the scheme. Certainly it is not our intention to offer any opposition to it, although one or two observations may be made with a view to discovering possible improvements. I should like to ask first why the draft proposals are printed in this type. I am satisfied that, if the average small producer of pigs, not too well acquainted with legal literary matter, sits down to read, assimilate and try to understand the contents of either the Pig or the Bacon Order, there will be a restriction of production while he is trying to read this document when he ought to be feeding his pigs. May I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should call the attention of whoever may be responsible for the printing, to the printing of these draft schemes? I see no reason why decent print should not be made available not only to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, but to those who are to be part and parcel of any scheme under the Act. We agree with the fundamental principles both of the pig and bacon schemes. One is bound, however, to appreciate that with regard to the Act of 1931, and the Bill of 1933, there is. now a slight difference. Whereas marketing schemes were not dependent upon the regulation of imports, the Bill of 1933 permits, even for schemes under the 1931 Act, a regulation of the imports of a commodity. It also permits a board, when it commences to function, to determine the quantity and variety of a commodity which may be produced in this country.

It might have been a distinct improvement in this scheme if there could have been an over-riding board, apart from the board referred to in the scheme, jointly representing producers and consumers. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has intimated, with regard to the milk scheme, that such an over-riding board will be appointed. If such a board had been appointed in this case, it might have smoothed out many of the difficulties which may occur. If we are to carry the great mass of consumers with us along these co-operative lines, it is better, in the initial stages, that we should smooth out these difficulties so that, in the future, there may be a good deal of plain sailing. I think that might have been a distinct improvement both in the pig and in the bacon scheme. The board consists wholly of producers, with the exception of the members appointed by the Minister. I am sure I express the opinion of the Minister when I say we hope there will be no such restriction of home production that there will be, consequentially, a rise in price and a diminution in the consumption of British bacon. We would rather see that the output should increase simultaneously with the regulation of imports, and that prices should be so reasonable, both to the producer and the consumer, that the expanding markets will be preserved for the producer of pigs in this country. Such an over-riding board as I have mentioned, representing equally producers and consumers, might have smoothed out all sorts of difficulties, and prevented a reaction which might, ultimately, be detrimental to the producers of pigs and bacon in this country.

One of the points I would like to put to the Minister is this: I notice that there are registered producers of pigs, and non- registered producers of pigs. This is a rather technical point, and I do not know whether the Minister can give me a reply. I can sympathise with him if he tries to do it. May I invite his officials to listen for a moment? If, when the ballot paper is received by the small producer of three, four or five pigs in a rural area, he replies to both questions in the negative he is not a registered producer. He is denied the right to sell any one, two or three of his four or five pigs to the board, or for curing purposes. He cannot do that unless he is a registered producer. Now in my own area, which is an industrial one, the general situation is that a man produces four or five pigs. He may kill one for bacon, sell one locally to the co-operative butcher, and he may have one killed to sell in email portions. To him this will not make any difference. But, under the terms of this Bill and scheme, I see a vague possibility that the person in a rural area, where pork butchers are few, may find himself with three or four pigs, because he has not the power to sell to the board or for bacon purposes.

Therein lies the success or failure of the scheme. I want to see as many votes cast in the affirmative, both for the pig and the bacon scheme, as possible, but there is just another point with regard to the small producer. Some person, resident for instance in Westmorland in a purely rural area—I am putting this almost solely for the edification of the Minister of Transport—may answer both questions in the affirmative and become a registered producer of pigs. He may also, however, be a breeder of pigs, and he may want to dispose of a litter of half-a-dozen. Will the registered producer have the power to Bell store pigs? That seems to me a problem, to which I cannot discover the solution in the pig scheme. It may be fully catered for, but I have not seen the answer to that question.

One other point with regard to the periodic determination of the quantity of pigs which may be produced by any registered producer over a given period. According to the scheme, the number of pigs any registered producer can produce in a given period will be determined upon the basis of some past output on that man's farm, allotment, or whatever it may be. This is the point I want to submit on the Floor of this House. The Co-operative Wholesale Society have endeavoured to secure the requisite quantity of pigs for curing purposes to supply their customers. They have failed to secure that quantity, and they have had to establish factories in Denmark, not for trading competition in the ordinary sense, but merely to provide adequate quantities of bacon for their own members in this country. Under the terms of the Marketing Bill, imports from abroad can be regulated and reduced. That may render the co-operative wholesale factories more or less derelict, or partially so. If we are to increase output in this country we may find—although existing bacon factories are not working to capacity—that on the lines of the Lane Fox Commission Report the Wholesale Co-operative Society, having successfully invested money for the benefit of its customers in this country, may be seriously hampered. That society ought to be allotted a certain output, consistent with our imports from Denmark. If they care to transfer, and erect new curing factories in this country, they should be permitted some allocation of output. If the scheme succeeds in diminishing imports, and increasing output in this country, the Wholesale Co-operative Society should not be ignored, and they should have reasonable treatment. The Lane Fox Commission makes the following statement: We think that consideration should be given to curers who, in the interests of both pig producers and the bacon industry at home, are prepared to transfer factory accommodation from foreign countries to the United Kingdom, and especially to those who are also in a position to sell the bacon they produce direct to the consumer. That can only refer to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and I think the promoters of the scheme might do well, when determining from time to time the permitted output to any factory, to bear in mind the output and the services rendered by the Co-operative Wholesale Society both at home and in curing in Denmark for home consumption. Having made these observations, I want to say that it is not our intention to oppose this scheme. We are indeed wholehearted supporters of the scheme, with perhaps slight modifications and improvements where improvements can be made. We shall be very happy if, at the end of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's period of office, he has created such a desire for co-operation, and elimination of waste, as will restore the prosperity in any or all the sections of the agricultural industry. If he succeeds in doing that through these co-operative schemes we shall be the first to congratulate him, instead of condemning him for initiating these schemes.