HC Deb 09 November 1934 vol 293 cc1469-85

The following Notices of Motion stood upon the Order paper: That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 27) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-third day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 29) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1934, dated the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order, 1934, dated the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. That the Additional Import Duties (No. 33) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.—[Dr. Burgin.]

1.35 p.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

Before I call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to move the first of the Additional Import Duties Orders, I would point out that it has been the general practice of the House to have a discussion upon all the proposed Orders on the Motion for the first one, and if that course be agreeable to hon. Members, I suggest that it should be followed on this occasion.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we shall be quite happy to fall in with that arrangement.

1.36 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)

I beg to move, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved. The arrangement which you have suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and which has been accepted by the Opposition, has in practice been found to be convenient. I would, therefore, suggest that, with the permission of the House, I should make a short introductory statement with regard to the eight Orders taken together and then give a little more detail about those Orders, which, through the usual channels, I have learnt are likely to be of more interest to the Opposition than others. There are eight Orders which the House is asked to approve—Nos. 26 to 33 —and the House may like to be reminded that Order No. 25 was approved on the 24th July last, so that this is a definite continuation of the series. Of these eight Orders, five were made in August, one in September and two in October. The Orders cover a great mass of detail which has been investigated by the Import Duties Advisory Committee and upon which reports have been made, and upon those reports, after consideration, Orders have been made, and it is the affirmative Resolutions approving those Orders which are now asked from the House.

They cover a wide variety of products, two classes of agricultural products, fruit and vegetables, and various industrial products, chiefly strawboard, medical and surgical instruments, various bolts, nuts and nails, semi-manufactured forms of certain metals, and various products of iron and steel wire. I think it is the experience of almost everyone of us that after any piece of machinery has been run for a certain time adjustments are made, and bolts are tightened up, and that is the experience with these Import Duties Orders. A number of them are mere modifications or improvement of earlier Orders. I will deal with them quite sketchily in the first instance, passing on to give a little more detail about surgical instruments which has been asked for by the Opposition, and a little more detail about the agricultural products and the nonferrous metals which has been asked for by hon. Members below the Gangway.

I will give the house an indication of the way in which the Import Duties Advisory Committee have proceeded with regard to these Orders generally. Take the first Order No. 26. This imposes specific duties instead of an ad valorem duty on certain kinds of preserved fruits. The new duties are very little higher than the old duty—the old duty was 25 per cent. ad valorem—but they are more effective because they should assist home growers by excluding or making dearer the foreign article at certain times of the year. Such is the growth of experience in the canning industry that it is necessary to extend the definition of the method of preserving jam. Fruit preserving was hitherto done by chemicals and by artificial heat. Precisely the same results can now be obtained by artificial cold and consequently there is need for a definition. That is rather symptomatic of this class of Order which I am now moving. There are slight changes for the better to carry out more effectively the decisions to which Parliament is committed of allowing the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make recommendations, and on those recommendations to make Orders. I have the details of the countries from which the imports come, of the areas in which the British trade is carried on, and of the relative extent of imports in each case should they be requested. Passing from Order No. 26 dealing with fruit, I come to strawboards which is to have a duty of 15 per cent. when unlined and 20 per cent. when lined. A very important industry in board made from waste paper has grown up in this country, and it is desired, without any injury whatever to the using industries, to give protection to the home makers. Again I have similar details.

That brings me to Order No. 28, a short Order dealing with medical and surgical instruments, and at the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite I will deal a little more fully with that particular Order. Surgical instruments come under the category of cutlery and tools although the words seem perhaps. a little inapplicable. Cutlery and tools are subject to a 10 per cent. additional duty. When the Orders were made, the duty on surgical instruments was left at 10 per cent. Order No. 28 puts the 10 per cent. up to 20 per cent. and places these particular tools and this particular type of cutlery in the same family as those other instruments. There is a very large industry in the United Kingdom, the factories are fully equipped with the most modern plant, and the public bodies and voluntary hospitals use almost entirely British instruments, and there is also a very considerable export trade in British-made instruments. There are imports of standard instruments sold at very low prices. The British preference is not to have a surgical instrument standardised and made by mass production at a low price, but to have, as far as possible, a hand-forged instrument provided here. The Committee, therefore, recommend that there should be a 20 per cent. duty upon these surgical instruments. Unless and until I am asked questions about this, I think that that is as far as I need take that particular Order for the moment.

I now come to Order No. 29, articles made from various metals. That is an immense family. The details run into very large proportions, because they deal with all kinds of bolts, nuts, screws, staples, tacks and things of that sort. I do not think it is necessary to go into them in detail, but I would point out that bolts, nuts and screws can be made in this country to the full extent of the whole of our requirements. It is anomalous, when we have coal and a flourishing iron and steel industry, that we should have any gap in our regulation of imports which permits large quantities of black iron and of steel, bolts, nuts and screws to come here in competition with our own workmen. There are a certain number of small screws of a precision type which we import regularly from other countries. Nothing in this Order will affect the importation of those precision screws because they will continue to be charged ad valorem whereas the duty that has been put on in this Order is a duty per weight, and touches the cheaper varieties, the more ordinary type of screw and bolt. I would emphasise the fact that this is an adjusting regulation to permit the precision screw to come in but is intended to keep out the cheap ordinary screw which we can manufacture perfectly well in this country. I have the details of the importation, the types and the areas where these things are made and the numbers of people employed, but unless and until I am pressed on any specific matter relating to this somewhat multitudinous schedule of metal articles, I do not think that I reed detain the House longer on the order. I now come to Orders Nos. 30 and 33. Order No. 30 relates to certain horticultural and agricultural products. Both Orders deal with trees. Order No. 33 is merely necessary because of a slip of definition in Order No. 30. It deals with the question whether or not there is to be a duty on the earth surrounding the roots of trees.

Sir PERCY HARRIS

Duty on the earth?

Dr. BURGIN

Yes, you may do a good deal of damage if you separate the earth from the tree. There has been a general review of horticultural products since the Order was first brought in in 1932 and progress has been made under the protection of the previous duties. There is an adjustment of a number of duties to increase the protection for the home growers at certain periods of the year. Again, unless hon. Members desire to cross-examine me on points of detail I do not think I need say anything further. That leaves me with only two other Orders, Nos. 31 and 32, which deal with zinc and rivets. Order No. 31 puts a duty on zinc sheets and strips corresponding to the duty which is put on by Order No. 29 on aluminium, copper and copper alloys when in sheet and strip. What the Committee recommend as an alternative to an ad valorem duty, a special duty of so much a pound, the greater of the two duties to apply. Orders Nos. 29 and 31 are complementary. Order No. 32 deals with manufactures of iron and steel wire. It imposes a duty of 33 1/3 per cent. on various articles manufactured of iron and steel wire. In the case of bifurcated or split rivets, there is also a specific duty of 3d. per 1,000. There is a tremendous range of wire products not covered by any additional duty and foreign competition has been greatly increasing. I have the statistics of employment and the details of British manufacture. No using industry is affected but the producing industry is considerably helped by this Order. Those are the criteria which this House has hitherto required to be satisfied upon before giving its assent to these Orders. That is all that it is necessary to say at this stage. There is a vast amount of detail, and while not promising to give an answer off the reel to any specific question, I think that I shall be able to cover any normal inquiry.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

We are obliged to the hon. Member for having given us his explanatory statement relating to the whole of the eight Orders. I do not propose to invite the House to listen to me in an examination in minute detail of each one of the Orders. I shall make reference to one of them only, namely, Order No. 28, not because I think that the trade concerned therein is of greater importance than the other trades concerned in the other Orders—those engaged in those trades no doubt consider that they are of exceptional importance both to the employers and the employed—but because Order No. 28 is one which I can conveniently discuss and on which I can raise the general principle which ought to be raised. We on this side of the House have repeatedly expressed our views concerning the policy which underlies these various Orders. The Minister has spoken of the Orders as the continuation of a series. They certainly are the continuation of a series. The Orders have become almost as plentiful as leaves in Vallambrosa, and like the quality of mercy which droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath, they have come upon this House in showers.

Whether the policy underlying these Orders has been adequately discussed or not, I should like to say, and I do not wish to raise a general controversy, that I agree with those who allege that the Government have through the medium of the Orders been implementing what is well known to have been the Tory policy for the last 30 years. They have been doing that under the mantle of the National Government. They have implemented the old Tory policy of Protection and the mandate which they allege they received at the last election. In so far as our party is concerned I entirely deny that there was any such mandate. That is all that I propose to say on that somewhat controversial issue. I am prepared to concede that from time to time Governments may be obliged to have regard to the excessive importation of, shall we say, sweated goods. I take that as an illustration.

I can conceive that any Government, whatever its political complexion, may be compelled to have regard to the vast inflow of sweated goods from other countries which create economic difficulties inside the borders of our own country. If I am prepared to concede that proposition, and it is a limited proposition that I am conceding, I am prepared to concede that there must be some sort of regulation embarked upon. Once we concede the proposition that there may be from time to time necessity for some sort of regulation, clearly, we ought to know what the specific case may be for applying the regulation to any particular import at any given time. This brings me to the remarks I desire to make on these Orders. I complain, as we have complained frequently, that oft-times we are invited to approve an Order without very adequate reasons why we should approve being advanced. The case is stated before a triumvirate. These three people, excellent gentlemen no doubt in their respective capacities, very capable men, are called upon to determine whether a given commodity shall or shall not be the subject of an Import Duty.

The hon. Member will, of course, say quite rightly that in the ultimate resort there is an appeal to this House, and that this House is free to do as it likes. That is true, but when the House is called upon to exercise its final authority in the matter it has not at its disposal that close and meticulous statement of the case which was available to the Commissioners when they examined it. Take the Order with which I am concerned as an illustration. We have a brief summary of the case in page 2 of the Order, but nobody can argue, by any stretch of imagination, that it is an adequate statement of the case for applying this Duty. It is a very summarised account. I say that in order to emphasise this point, that we have entered upon a policy whereby three people, not answerable to this House by their presence here and not subject to cross-examination, discuss a problem like this in absentia without our knowing the case that is put before them and call upon us to implement their suggestions. What do they say in regard to Import Duty Order No. 28. In the first place, they say that there is a falling off in demand, and they give the reason, that it is due to trade depression. What does that mean? They say: The surgical instrument industry has suffered severely from the falling off of demand during the period of trade depression.

Dr. BURGIN

"During the period of trade depression."

Mr. JONES

The hon. Member perhaps objects to my saying that the falling off is due to trade depression. Perhaps I was a little wrong in my interpretation of the phrase, but it seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to relate the falling off in demand to trade depression. They have some relation to each other. Trade depression clearly has something to do with the fall in demand, because the financial resources of those who are ordinarily customers of these instruments have been depleted on account of the trade depression, and they are not able to keep up their demand for surgical and other instruments. The second case they make is that the fall in demand has been accentuated by foreign competition. In his statement the hon. Member said that a large proportion of these instruments used by hospitals and institutions are made in Great Britain and that we have in fact a fairly substantial export trade in some of these instruments. There is, however, an import trade. Obviously, it is a limited market abroad. The only people likely to ask for these instruments are those engaged in hospitals and dental institutions, and I submit that when you tend to exclude instruments of this sort you really are doing something which perhaps is more far reaching in its effect than when you exclude foreign trees and shrubs.

Science, and especially the science of medicine, is an international activity and interest. If hospitals find, as they clearly must otherwise they would not buy these foreign instruments, that a German instrument is more adaptable for their purpose than an English instrument is there not something rather more in it, something more valuable to the nation, than the mere passing advantage of pounds, shillings and pence to British traders? There is the inestimable advantage of placing at the disposal of our hospitals and such like institutions an opportunity for making use of the very latest which science has devised, here or abroad, and, therefore, I take objection to Order No. 28 on that account. Hospitals ought to be able to have access to the very latest instruments whatever they may be, and wherever they may be devised. We are told in the Memorandum of the Committee that new and important designs are continually being introduced. That applies here as it does abroad; and abroad as it does here, and, therefore, they should be at the disposal and available to the people of this country. Having regard to the proposition I have laid down I am astonished to read: We are satisfied that the existence of a healthy industry in this country is most desirable in the interests of progress in surgery. From one point of view that is quite right and we should all agree that it is desirable, but I question whether we are going to facilitate progress in surgery by excluding, or seeking to exclude, foreign instruments which may be of inestimable value in the work. Last night we had a most interesting interchange of views between the Lord President of the Council and one or two of my hon. Friends in relation to the effect of the creation of a monopoly in the matter of armaments and the political reactions in those areas where such a monopoly exists. That is one of the troubles I find in relation to all these Import Duties: it is the creation of vested interests here, there and everywhere. If the Parliamentary Secretary would only read the passage that the Lord President of the Council applied in another connection last night, relating it to the granting of protective duties up and down the land, and ask precisely the same question as his right hon. Friend asked—what would be the chances of success or failure of a candidate at a by-election when the question of the retention or removal of these duties was in dispute I—the answer would be precisely the same as that what the Lord President indicated last night in relation to armaments.

The Government have created all over the country vested interests in relation to which the employers are very keenly alive, and the workpeople are becoming keenly alive also. Yes, but mark the point. It may quite well be the case that a Government, looking at this problem from a national point of view, will come to the conclusion that it is proper in the national interest that the duty upon a certain article be removed, that national policy is hampered by the vested interests which have been created. This matter of import duties has been urged ad nauseam for years, and we can only repeat arguments that have been used time and time again. I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends that to this method of regulation our objection remains unchanged. We may admit that some form of regulation is inevitable under certain conditions, but that does not commit us to this form of regulation; and on the general ground that I have indicated quite inadequately, as on the grounds advanced on many occasions before, I express our objection to these Orders en masse.

2.8 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS

We are considering a regular hotch-potch of duties, on nails, surgical instruments, trees and plants, and vegetables. I am sometimes amazed. I will not say at the width of knowledge but at the large capacity of the three gentlemen who urge the need for these various duties on a comprehensive number of articles. I do not pretend to have that technical knowledge either in myself or available in advance. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said, the House having accepted this policy it is impossible for the private Member to turn the limelight on every particular article. Most of these recommendations reached Members only a few days ago, and it has been impossible to collect statistics and information that would enable one to reach a judgment as to the advisability of the duties or as to their size. I have one criticism to offer, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to convey it to the appropriate people. It is rather lamentable that no serious attempt is now being made by the Commissioners to give us detailed statistics. In the earlier days the recommendations were accompanied by ample information and statistics so that we could judge of their merit. We do not hear the evidence given to the Commissioners, for it is taken in private. We do not know why or how they have arrived at their decision. It is in the interests of the public, and particularly of the House of Commons, which has the responsibility, that fuller information should be made available.

I am interested in that very healthy article of diet which I am glad to see is becoming more popular—vegetables. I am going to make a bold statement, though I am not prepared to substantiate it with figures. In the towns and cities, and in London particularly, vegetables are too expensive. They are difficult to obtain and insufficient in variety, and I should have thought that in the interests of the national diet the freer our ports, and the larger the area of supply, the better it would be for the well-being of the nation. We have had some of these duties in force for two years. I have here Order No. 5, dated 1932, which came into operation two years ago. It was then suggested that there was much prospect of improved marketing, and the Commissioners argued as to the necessity for the duty. There is this remarkable statement on page 3 of the latest Order: In respect of cauliflowers and broccoli, as substantial progress in production is being made there appears to be good reason for an increase. That is an increase of the original duty. I could understand that statement being used as an argument for reducing the duty, that because an industry was prosperous and able to stand on its own feet the duty should be reduced. The Commissioners have it both ways. In the time of Henry VII if you were poor you were taxed heavily because you were not spending, and if you spent you were taxed heavily because you could afford to spend and were apparently rich. The argument of the Commissioners is that if an industry is doing badly the duty should be increased, and if the industry is doing well that is an equal reason for raising the duty. In other words, if an industry is prosperous it is a case for further protection. and if it is languishing or poor it is equally a ease for protection.

Vegetables, which include lettuce, are very variable in price. Much depends on the weather, a dry summer or a wet summer, and the condition of the market varies from time to time. I have taken the trouble to get some of the market reports, but it is difficult to state what is the normal price for cauliflowers, broccoli, carrots and turnips. In the greengrocers' shops in the East End of London, the price, especially for such things as lettuce, is usually prohibitive to the ordinary working-class homes. Nothing is more unfortunate among the poorer sections of the community than the comparatively small use of vegetables as a food product. My own view is that the Committee was right when it put the blame—or hinted at it—not so much on foreign competition as on unsatisfactory marketing, and, on the one hand, the poor price paid to the grower, and, on the other hand, the high price paid by the consumer.

I was in the country last Monday night when I ought to have been in the House of Commons, but I was called away on an important duty to address a meeting, and I happened to be staying with a very large and successful farmer. I was talking to him about the importance of his giving more time and devoting more land to the growing of vegetables, especially winter vegetables such as winter spinach, and the answer I got—I think it is a good one—was that the real trouble was that in the marketing of small parcels of vegetables sent to London the system of marketing was so unsatisfactory, and the cost of transport to the centre was so great, that it certainly did not pay to handle on any considerable scale the production of vegetable products. It is not merely in the great cities, but the local marketing facilities are bad. The intelligent foreigner visiting this country is struck by the absence of local markets. In the home counties—Surrey, Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk—counties at a distance of between 60 and 70 miles from London, there is no proper local wholesale market for the handling of vegetables. A great part of these vegetables go to Covent Garden, through all the expensive handling due to railway freights to London and carriage to the railway station, and has to go all the way back to Ipswich, Maidstone or other of the local markets.

Of course, that is not a matter within the cognisance of the three counties. The real responsibility is that of the Minister of Agriculture. One of the things I do not like about this particular procedure is that the whipping-boy of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary, who has to deal with nails, screws, cauliflowers and tomatoes and all the rotten eggs of the Government, cannot be an authority on the home markets of the country. It ought to have been the obligation of the Minister of Agriculture to make himself conversant with the problem, and satisfy himself that this is a good recommendation, and that here lies the real remedy. Unfortunately, it is Friday afternoon, and most Members have gone away to their constituencies by early train. It is impossible for me to divide the House in these circumstances, but I do protest, first, against the procedure, and secondly, that there is no adequate evidence for the duties on many of these articles. There is a serious discontent among the working people about the high prices of many of these articles. It may be that the farmer cannot produce these articles at any lower price, but whether because of bad marketing or high cost of production, or whether these duties are too high—and that is undoubtedly a contributory fact—I think that the Government are tackling the problem on the wrong lines. I think the suggestion in these Reports as to improved marketing is the right method, and I am not satisfied that a case has been made out in the Report for these recommendations. I can only protest, and I exercise that right in the form of speech.

2.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I approach the subject from an entirely different standpoint from that of the hon. Member, having come from a district the produce of which would lie rotting on the ground under a, system of unrestricted foreign imports. I believe that that danger has been obviated. I cannot understand the last speaker still advocating an out-of-date procedure by which foreign importation should allow our own produce to rot on the ground, and our own people to be out of work. If I might use his own term, and turn the floodlight of public opinion on these Reports, I would read these words which appear on page 3: There is a general consensus of evidence as to the large increase in home production "— Thanks to Import Duties, and as to the advance made in market-methods Again, thanks to Import Duties and from no quarter has it been suggested that prices generally have been affected to the detriment of the consumers. That is a matter which the Conservative party have always said would happen, namely, that prices would not be adversely affected if the system of Import Duties was introduced. We have excellent reasons why they should be continued. For the first time, there has been an increase of men employed in agricultural pursuits. Sometimes it is said that the Board of Trade are not sufficiently go ahead, but, at any rate, they have a start, and I, for one, shall be very glad to support them.

2.23 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN

It is only, of course, with the consent of the House that I can speak again on the same matter, but the House probably desires that I should answer the question put to me. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), in dealing with medical and surgical instruments, I think, misapprehended what I have said. He must not relate the large consumption of instruments by hospitals with the importations from abroad. The two sentences were entirely separate. I was not saying anything to convey the impression that any part of the foreign instruments went normally into consumption in the British hospitals. Where foreign inventions or discoveries are made, the only effect of this Order will be to increase the duty from 10 to 2) per cent.

A large part of the hon. Member's speech sounded as if there were to be a prohibition. Nobody will really believe that an addition of 2s. in the £ on the duty is going to have any such effect. Really, as in so many of these matters, we have to balance the question of price to the consumer with the question of attractiveness to the producer. We have to do all we can to encourage employment in this country, and therefore fairly to balance the interests of the producer and the consumer—not to overdo it, of course, but to see that that side is considered. The hon. Member referred to the speech by the Lord President of the Council last night, and he asked what would the candidate in a by-election say when he was asked was he in favour of this duty. Why has the House of Commons in its wisdom under the Import Duties Act placed the whole of this matter under independent control? Why is it that the Members of the Import Duties Advisory Committee are not in this House and are not directly and personally responsible here? It is in order to make them independent and to reduce the possibility of those very considerations which the hon. Member has raised.

With regard to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Sir. P. Harris), I am sure that anything which he can do to persuade the working people to consume more vegetables will be greatly welcomed. It is not because of the price in the greengrocers shops that more vegetables are not consumed. Thers is a reluctance to consume them and a lack of familiarity among the public with the quality of the vegetables and the advantage of vegetables as a diet, which we want to dispel. I was surprised at what he said regarding price because no complaint has reached us at all on the part of the consumer of the price of foodstuffs being too high. It is quite a wrong impression for the hon. Baronet to have or to attempt to give the House that there are complaints about the price of foodstuffs. Such is not the fact. The index of food prices has not caused any complaint. And the hon. Baronet deludes himself if he thinks that is the case.

Sir P. HARRIS

It is among the poor.

Dr. BURGIN

I do not accept that statement. It is quite contrary to the information that we have. The hon. Baronet also says that it would be better to have all our ports open and to let in as much of these vegetables as possible wherever they come from. Does it not strike the House that it would be rather strange, with all the land which is available in this country, that we should import enormous quantities of vegetables from France and the Netherlands and Belgium. Is it not a tremendous tribute to the business acumen of those cowl-tries that, in spite of the Channel being between us, they can send their vegetables here and find a market for them while we leave our fields partially unfilled and do not get our goods to market? Should not we encourage by every means in our power the movement for a vast increase in the production of good quality vegetables which is going on now?

I have here detailed particulars as to where these different classes of vegetables come from, their prices and the extent to which we in this country grow similar articles, and the increase of acreage under cultivation, the increase of output, the increase of production in this country in regard to all these different classes of vegetables is striking. When we are considering land settlement problems, and smallholdings problems, with the desire to put as many more men as we can on the land, we must interest ourselves to see that there is a market for home-grown vegetables and that it is not altogether taken away by large-scale shipments from countries across the sea. There is every desire to popularise the consumption of vegetables and to see that the consumer gets a good quality of vegetables, but surely it is an anomaly that we should import so much that we could grow ourselves. It would be very much better indeed if we made our own marketing arrangements better and induced our own people to consume in greater quantities something which we really can grow and grow well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 26) Order, 1934, dated the seventeenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 27) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 28) Order, 1931, dated the twenty-third day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 29) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 30) Order, 1934, dated the thirtieth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth clay oil October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 31) Order, 1934, dated the eleventh day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 32) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 33) Order, 1934, dated the twenty-ninth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirtieth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]