HL Deb 11 May 1920 vol 40 cc269-72

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses agreed to.

Schedule:

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to leave out "sulphate of ammonia" and insert "nitrogenous chemical manures." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment in order to ascertain from the Minister of Agriculture why it is that certain fertilisers which are in general use among farmers are included in this schedule in order to stop export, while certain other fertilisers, also in general use among farmers, are excluded. This applies particularly to nitrogenous chemical fertilisers other than sulphate of ammonia. Your Lordships will notice that phosphatic fertilisers, as well as potassic which are of a chemical character and are generally in use amongst farmers, are all included in. the Schedule, but, for some reason, of the nitrogenous fertilisers, which are far the more important, particularly as regards the cultivation of cereals, only one, and that a fertiliser not in very general use before the war, sulphate of ammonia, is included.

This excludes substances such as nitrate of soda, nitrate, nitrate of lime, and those various nitrates (of which we have very little knowledge at present) which are likely to result front the extraction of nitrogen from the air in such manner as is being pursued in Germany and Scandinavia at present, and tested with a view to commercial success in this country. I do not want to refer to bone and bone manures, because it is clear they are not of chemical origin, and special reasons might be urged in support of exclusion. No doubt the Minister will tell us that roost of these scheduled fertilisers are produced at home. I should answer him, of course, that as regards the potassic fertilisers which are included, that would not be the ease. With the possible exception of a little of the blast furnace dust which has been much advertised, and kelp or seaweed which is used in small way in the north of Scotland for producing potash, all potash fertilisers are imported from abroad. Why is there this differentiation between one class of fertilisers and another?

Amendment moved— In the Schedule, page 2, line 12, leave out ("sulphate of ammonia") and insert ("nitrogenous chemical manures").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM)

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment, and that I shall be able to give him the explanation he requires as to the limited scope of the Bill. It is frankly a limited Bill, because in the opinion of the Government it is not desirable to interfere more than is absolutely necessary with any legitimate trade, and no evil results are expected to accrue from leaving out of the Bill the full range of nitrogenous manures to which he refers. I believe very serious results, which I am sure he would not wish even to contemplate, might take place if nitrogenous manures as a whole were included.

For example, he referred to those nitrates which are extracted from the air. If the power to re-export these nitrates was forbidden, two things, I am informed, are quite certain. These nitrates, such as the nitrates of lime and of ammonia, and I think another which he mentioned, which we now receive from the plants in Norway, would not be sent here at all if there was any restriction on their re-export. The risk would not be taken by the importers. I am also informed that the great Billing-ham factory, on which we are building so much hope of even excelling the German process and extracting nitrogen from the air, would not be proceeded with at all by the commercial interests which have undertaken to take it over from the Government. Similarly with nitrate of soda, if that is not permitted to be re-exported, it is quite certain that the importers will not maintain in future as they have in the past a surplus stock here, which is available in the case of need for the British producer.

Apart from these particular considerations, this Bill, as I informed your Lordships on Second Reading, is, in effect, an agreed Bill with the trade as well as with the other interests concerned. Certainly the inclusion of nitrate of soda would be bitterly opposed by the trade and would only lead, I think, to a very regrettable division of opinion which would be of no benefit to agriculture. After all the supply of sulphate of ammonia which contains the nitrogen which my noble friend desires to r3tain in the country, is at present in excess of the demand, and for that reason we are freely granting certificates for the export of the surplus not needed by the British farmer. I think it would be a great mistake to place under the ban the other nitrogenous manures, the export of which is so insignificant at the present time— with the exception of nitrate of soda they do not even appear in the Board of Trade returns—and we should make an unnecessary and wanton interference with trade, which I am sure is not the desire of your Lordships any more than that of the Government at this period after the war.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I quite follow the points raised by the noble Lord opposite, which I understand are two. In the first place, it is thought by his Department that there is no real risk in permitting the export of certain nitrogenous manures because we have so much sulphate of ammonia in the country—almost more than we can use—and that therefore the retention of the other manures, such as nitrate of lime, of which the quantities are relatively small, would be of no advantage.

But there is one point on which I did not quite follow the noble Lord. He spoke of the interference with entrepôt trade if this export were forbidden. That I can understand. But would not that apply to a certain extent to some of the articles which are scheduled? Superphosphate—is that never the subject of re-export? Equally I should have thought that some of the potash manures might in the course of their travels be imported here for purposes of re-export; although I suppose we are glad to use as much potash brought from abroad as we can get. I do not understand, if the entrepôd trade is to be so jealously guarded, why it could not apply to some other articles.

LORD LEE OF FAREHAM

We do not wish jealously to safeguard the entrepôt trade, but merely to interfere with it as little as possible, and that is provided for in the particular substances which are mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill.

LORD BLEDISLOE

In view of the explanation that this has been agreed upon between the different branches of the trade, I do not desire to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.