§ "As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, the duties chargeable upon sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin imposed by Sections four and five of the Finance Act, and the First Schedule to that Act shall ceare."—[Mr. Dalton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. DALTONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in the name of myself and other hon. Members, is moved for the purpose of repealing the sugar duties.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLOn a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Member is moving his new Clause. If it be desired, may we take the discussion on the refined sugar Clause at the same time, or will that come up later?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat raises rather a different point, and, strictly speaking, the question would only be in order on the separate Clause; but, if it be for the convenience of the Committee that the two questions should be discussed together, that might be done.
§ Mr. HANNONDo you mean, Sir, that after taking part in the Debate on this Clause I can move the new Clause later on?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member took part in the Debate on this Clause and referred to the question raised in the other Clause definitely, I should not allow him to repeat his argument at a later stage.
§ Mr. HANNONI should only formally move the Clause.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill)May I ask, Sir, whether you have considered whether the Clause to which the hon. Member refers would be out of order?
§ Mr. DALTONThis Clause is a straightforward proposition for the repeal of the Sugar Duty, Which, in our view, is the most indefensible item in the whole range of the British tax system as it exists to-day. I would remind the Committee that since the War there has only been one occasion on which a substantial reduction has been made in the Sugar Duty. That was in 1924, when the Labour Government, was in office, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. On that occasion a large reduction was made, of about two-thirds of the pre-existing Sugar Duty, with very beneficial results, both upon the price of sugar and upon employment in the sugar industry, to which I shall make a further reference later. It may be permissible to refer here to a speech which my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer made some little while ago, in which he stated that, had the Labour Government continued in office for a second year, they would, in that year, have swept away the whole of the remaining Sugar Doty, and also the other duties upon food which still figure in our financial system. I think that the people of this country, when the time comes to judge of the comparative financial policies of the present Government and of its predecessor, will be interested to note that, whereas the Labour Government were pledged to complete their work of sweeping away the taxes on food, the present Government have done practically nothing in that direction.
The Sugar Duty is a duty to which we take objection, in the first place, because it is a very heavy tax upon a necessary of life. Sugar, however, is not only a necessary of life in the ordinary sense, but is also an ingredient and a raw material in a great number of other forms of manufacture in this country. A very large number of persons are employed in the industries connected with the making 1449 of jam, chocolate, and the large number of other branches of economic life into which sugar enters as a very important ingredient in the process of manufacture. One might even go a little further a field, and point out that the glass bottle making industry, and a number of others, are very closely connected with the demand for sugar, and that, consequently, the effect of maintaining this tax upon sugar, and of keeping up the price of sugar as a result, has the effect of limiting consumption and limiting employment in a large number of industries making foods and other things into which sugar enters. We have already had the experience, as a result of the reduction made by my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the financial results of a reduction of this burden upon the consumption of sugar. As a result of the reduction, the price of sugar fell very substantially, and the consumption of sugar very greatly increased. The consumption of sugar at the present time is only fractionally above what it was in 1013, before the War; but, before the Sugar Duty was reduced in the 1924 Finance Bill, the consumption of sugar had fallen very much below the figure at which it used to stand before the War.
It is very easy to find examples of the way in which that restriction of consumption comes about under the pressure of this heavy tax. It is well known that many housewives who used before the War, when sugar was cheap, to make their own jam, have been unable to do so as a result of the increase in the price of sugar. That is one illustration of the way in which the demand for sugar is limited, and the way in which, incidentally, the demand for fruit is also limited. If it were desired to help British agriculture, and particularly fruit growing, a very excellent way of doing it would be to sweep away the Sugar Duty. Cheaper sugar would stimulate a very wide range of industry and a large number of uses of sugar which cannot now be carried as far as is desirable owing to the very heavy burden of the tax. In 1913, the Sugar Duty amounted to only 1s. 10d. per cwt. At the present time, even after the reduction that was made in the Budget of 1924, the duty amounts is 11s. 8d. per cwt., and, even allowing for the rebate of 4s. 3d. on Empire sugar, Which, incidentally, only amounts to some 20 per cent. of the total supply, the lower 1450 preferential rate on sugar is still 7s. 5d. per cwt., as against 1s. 10d. pre-War. Consequently, the preferential rate is more than four times the pre-War rate—and I repeat that that applies only to 20 per cent. of the sugar supply of this country—and the full rate is more than six times the rate prevailing before the War. There has been a more than sixfold increase, even after the reduction that was carried out in 1924. I would like, by way of comparison, to point out that the burden of Income Tax and Super-tax, about which so much is heard in these Debates, has not, even in the case of the largest incomes, increased six-fold as compared with the pre-War figure.
The increase in the burden upon the sugar consumer in terms of the duty is unprecedentedly high, and is so high as to be quite unjustifiable at the present time. The burden which is imposed by this duty has been investigated by the Colwyn Committee, and it has been found that the payment which has to be made in respect of this duty by an average family of five persons is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2 5s. per annum as compared with a corresponding burden of only 6s. per annum in 1913. It is, of course, clear that this duty falls most heavily upon those who have the smallest incomes, and upon those working-class families with the largest number of young children. It is a tax which falls most heavily upon those who are least able to bear the burden. The Colwyn Committee, having examined the mattes in great detail, came to this conclusion.
We consider that the Sugar Duty is relatively high"—Even in the financial needs of the present time—and that, if any relief of taxation is found possible in the next few years, it should be applied first in reduction of this duty.The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in past speeches in this House, has thrown out a hint that he would look not unfavourably upon a reduction of this duty if the finances were available. I should be interested to hear whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon can hold out any hope of a reduction in this duty as, at any rate, one of the first reductions which the Government will make if they are in a position to do so.
§ Sir BASIL PETOWould the hon. Gentleman say what is the date of the quotation which he has just given?
§ Mr. DALTONThe Report was published a few months ago. Perhaps I did not explain that I was referring to the Colywn Committee on National Debt and Taxation. Its Report came out only a few months ago—
§ Major HILLSIt was signed in November of last year.
§ Mr. DALTONIt was signed in November of last year, but was not, I think, published until a month or two afterwards. The figures quoted in the Colwyn Report are the figures up to and including last year. As I have said, I trust that the Financial Secretary may hold out some hope of a reduction of this duty at an early date. We must, of course, accept the ordinary mechanical refusal to expect this proposed new Clause on the ground that it would cost a considerable number of millions to the Revenue. Our view is that, although the finances of the country have been reduced to a state of considerable disorder by the present Government, even in spite of that disorder there should be a readjustment of taxation, including this abolition of the Sugar Duty which we are demanding on the grounds which I have been putting before the Committee, and that any gap in the Revenue should be made up by increasing other taxes or by imposing new taxes of a less objectionable and less damaging character to trade and employment than the Sugar Duty to which we are now taking objection. We do not, of course, expect the Financial Secretary to accept that view, but we shall press this Motion to a Division, in order to emphasise the very strong objection that we feel to this particular tax, and in order to give further evidence that the Labour party, when it is next in a position to direct the finances of this country, will, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, make one of its first changes in the direction of completely sweeping away this heavy burden upon this very important necessity of life.
§ Mr. HANNONI do not rise to support the new Clause but to call attention to the very serious situation in which the sugar refiners of this country find 1452 themselves, and to ask my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take into consideration the extent to which some measure of relief might be given to them in the present Finance Bill. The new Clause, "Reduced duty on sugar refined in the United Kingdom," which stands in the name of myself and the names of several of my hon. Friends on this side, seeks to have the sugar refined in this country put upon the same basis as the sugar coming into this country from the Empire, to the extent of one-third of its value. When special treatment was provided for sugar grown in this country, I took the opportunity of calling attention to the disadvantages which were inflicted upon the sugar refiners in this country, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture very strongly resented any concession of the kind being sought at that time.
We have in this country a large number of important centres, notably Greenock, Liverpool and the City of London, where a considerable body of employment has been found for a long time in the manufacture of refined sugar. Under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1925, the subsidies on sugar grown in this country were permitted to go through its entire series of processes until it became refined sugar. We sought at that time to induce His Majesty's Government to allow the subsidy to apply only to raw sugar which could subsequently be refined in the existing sugar refineries in this country; but the Government, in their wisdom, would not accept that proposal. The result is, that very grave unemployment has arisen in the centres where sugar refining was an industry of substantial importance. I see the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir Godfrey Collins) present. He, of all Members of this House, has a right to say to the Government that a definite grievance has been imposed upon a large number of his constituents under the operations of the present duties governing sugar. My information is—the hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong—that in Greenock which at one time was a sugar city, and much of the prosperity of Greenock has been derived from the manufacture of sugar, out of five very large factories in that ancient, distinguished Scottish Burgh which has been identified with the march 1453 of Scottish progress and Scottish economic development for a long period of time, employing 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 people, only two are struggling against grave adversity to keep their doors open for the employment of a small number of workpeople. I do not think that an injury of that kind should be inflicted upon any body of people in this country.
No doubt, the Financial Secretary has had his attention drawn to the serious situation created in the East End of London, in the case of Tate and Lyle's sugar factory. At one swoop last year through the stress of economic exigencies a vast number of people were thrown out of employment. If the incidence of taxation had been adjusted on the lines suggested in the new Clause which I hope to move, that unemployment would have been avoided. No one in this House or outside has any fault to find with the policy of the Government in assisting the production of home-grown sugar in this country.
§ Mr. THURTLEYes.
§ Mr. HANNONI believe the hon. Member opposite would object to the existence of the equator, if he could find any reason for objection. I can hardly conceive anything coming from this side of the House, in any circumstances, to which he could not find some objection. What is happening is, that not merely have sugar refineries been forced out of existence, not merely is there a continual widening of the range of unemployment in connection with the production of sugar in these old-established industries, but the sugar refiner, because he largely depends upon the raw sugar from Imperial sources of supply, is actually made the tax collector by the Inland Revenue without getting any consideration for it in return. There is, I think, some misunderstanding in the minds of many people that some measure of preference has been given to the sugar refiner here because he is employed in the capacity of paying the preference on Imperial imported sugar. That is not so. I am informed that the sugar refiners of this country have sometimes as much as £750,000 of their own money paid over in the form of Imperial preference, and they do not get one single penny interest on that money from the Treasury in consideration of the part they play in collecting it.
1454 I would not bring any complaints against my own Government if I could possibly avoid it. I hope that I have always been, and I hope that I shall always be, a very loyal party man. Of course, I recognise the difficulty of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary when he replies. He will say, "You take £1,400,000 away from the Revenue." That, in the mouth of the Chancellor of Exchequer or my right hon. Friend, would be a very forcible reply. But we have to consider whether it is not better to sacrifice some small measure of revenue to make some contribution towards the continuity of industry rather than always make the pretext of collecting revenue at the expense of opportunities for the employment of the people. It is of far greater consequence to our economic stability to make a sacrifice of revenue, or even sometimes to pay a subsidy, rather than see our people kept out of employment for prolonged periods. In the East End of London, in Liverpool and in Greenock there are to-day thousands of people who would have the opportunity of going back to their ordinary work in the sugar refining industry if the new Clause which I have placed upon the Order Paper were to be accepted by the Government.
4.0 p.m.
We on this side of the House are sometimes accused of taking no interest in the promotion of the welfare of the working classes. I hold that we on this side are the real protagonists of the interests of the working classes. Whenever we make a suggestion on economic policy, it is always with a view to increasing the opportunities for employment, and raising the standard of living. In the new Clause to which I have referred, as in all the proposals we have made with regard to safeguarding the industries of the people of this country, we have the same purpose in view, namely, to give the people a more hopeful outlook by continuity of employment, and I think His Majesty's Government, in a case of this kind, ought to examine carefully whether it is not better, from the point of view of the nation, to forgo a comparatively small amount of revenue if, in so doing, they restore to employment a large number of people, who will have increased spending power, and thus enlarge the opportunity of collecting more revenue. It is a very 1455 serious position. All of us who are engaged in trying to promote industry in this country from day to day, are more and more depressed at the struggle with which the British manufacturers are faced in their own market, as well as in every corner of the world's markets outside, and, certainly, when we have the opportunity of giving the British manufacturer in any branch of enterprise a fair opportunity in his own market, we ought to do all we possibly can to assist him in that direction.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend and His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in this case, we have not made a reasonable proposal affecting the daily bread of a large number of people, and whether, notwithstanding the embarrassment of a loss of revenue, my right hon. Friend will see the propriety of doing a really good day's work by restoring an ancient industry, which has been associated with the march of British enterprise for many generations, and so give the opportunity of a large volume of employment to a large number of people. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that into his careful, thoughtful and sympathetic consideration.
§ Mr. McNEILLThe hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Clause did not even attempt to camouflage its academic nature. He did not pretend for a moment—I do not blame him for it—that it is a practical proposal. He made some interesting observations on the principles of taxation, but the hon. Gentleman and the Committee realise that the Motion can have no relation to the finances of the year, because if this Clause were put into the Bill, the loss to the Revenue in the present year would be £11,500,000, and, in a full year, about £19,000,000. Supposing the hon. Member were to succeed in carrying this Clause, the results would be positively startling. First of all, it would completely upset the whole of the present year's Budget as proposed by my right hon. Friend. The consequence would be that Parliament, first of all, would have to find another Government. It would then have to start an entirely fresh Budget, framed entirely de novo, and, as a small corollary to all that, the House would have to sit, I suppose, into 1456 the late autumn in order to carry through the necessary legislation. The hon. Member knows that as well as I do, and that is why in moving this Clause he told us that he had no expectation that it would be carried. The hon. Gentleman told us that his right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had largely reduced the Sugar Duty, and that he had declared the other day that if he had only stayed in office a little longer, he would have still further reduced it, and made an announcement as to what he would do when next he got the opportunity, I confess that I have now been long enough a Member of this House to take rather a cynical view of that sort of statement. I do not attach very great weight to anything, that is said as to what will be done in other circumstances which may never happen, and I am always a little sceptical when I hear a right hon. Gentleman in opposition say what he will do when he gets the opportunity, which may or may not occur and when he says it in a form which he thinks will be very attractive in the constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman used an argument as regards this duty on sugar which, of course, always crops up when these matters are discussed, when he said the tax falls particularly heavily on the poorest classes. As I said the other clay, that is true of all taxes. You cannot put on any tax which is not more difficult for a poor loan to pay than for a rich man. It is a platitude. You may put a tax, of course, upon one section of the population and not upon another section, but if you put on any tax which is paid by the people at large, it is more onerous on the poorest class of people than it is upon the richest. But that merely in itself is a proposition that ought to have very little value in this connection, because the burden borne by one taxpayer as against another does not depend upon one particular tax, and it is not fair, and it is fallacious, to argue upon one particular tax isolated from the rest. What you have to look at is how the total taxation of the country borne by the poor, or the rich, or the well-to-do, or the moderately well-to-do, compares over the whole field of taxation. Of course, it is obviously true that the very poor housewife, in regard to sugar alone, is much more heavily hit than a millionaire by the sugar duty; but it 1457 does not follow that a person with an income of £100 a year is more heavily taxed than a man with £400 or £500 a year. You have to find out what is the total taxation borne by each, and, as I say, it is always fallacious to use this argument with regard to one tax alone. The hon. Gentleman attaches importance to what the Colwyn Committee has said on this matter; and I want to read the passage he read with slightly different emphasis. This is what the Colwyn Committee said:
We have expressed the view that the food duties, even as reduced by the Finance Act. 1924, must still exercise some adverse effect on the standard of living of the poor.Of course, that is true:We consider that the Sugar Duty is relatively high.That is the word to which the hon. Gentleman gave particular emphasis. Then he rather slurred over what followed:and that, if any relief in taxation is found possible in the next few years, it should be applied first in reduction of this duty.The hon. Member cannot submit the authority of the Colwyn Committee for proposing here and now the sweeping away of the sugar duties at the cost which, I have pointed out, it would mean to the Revenue at the present moment. That, really, is the only argument that the hon. Member advanced. I suppose the reason for not going further-I am grateful to him for being so brief, and I hope to follow his example in that respect; therefore, I do not want to blame him for not going further into a number of interesting subjects which are cognate to it—but I think the reason he confined himself to two statements was, as I have already said, that he realised it is only an academic point. He asked me whether I could give any assurance as to the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this particular duty. I am afraid I am not in a position to say anything. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Gentleman may remember, in the course of the financial Debates of this year, did make a very definite pronouncement as to his desire to get rid, especially, of the Tea Duty, and that he had always—or, at any rate, for some years past, and I think he said "always" —had it as his ideal to have what is called a "free breakfast table." 1458 Therefore, although I am not in a position to give any definite pledge as to what my right hon. Friend can do, I can repeat that that is what he has said, and I should assume that he would follow the advice of the Colwyn Committee with regard to the reduction of this duty, if and when the financial position of the country allowed it. But I must remind the hon. Gentleman, who made the observation that the finances of the country were in their present condition owing to the administration of my right hon. Friend, that there is another explanation which is given, as a rule from this side of the House, with regard to the present exigencies of our financial position. There were certain events which happened last year about which, I know, hon. Members opposite are tremendously sensitive. I do not know whether I should be guilty of any indelicacy if I were to refer to those events, but I notice how extremely sensitive hon. Members opposite are when any allusion is made to the disturbance of last year. Nevertheless, I must remind my hon. Friends on this side, at all events, that if it is impossible to listen to any demand for reduced taxation, we have our own views and explanation of the position in which we find ourselves, which are not quite the same as the views and explanation of those who put it all down to the iniquity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham. (Mr. Hannon) will move the New Clause which stands in his name, but I want to point out to him and to those hon. Friends who are associated with him in regard to that Amendment, which I know I cannot discuss now, that it would have a very different effect from that which they really intend. A reference has been made to the position in which sugar refiners find themselves at the present moment. I have looked into that matter as closely as I can, and I have concluded that their position is an exceedingly precarious one because they are faced with a very severe competition. I would like to say, however, that I do not think that the particular method which is suggested by my hon. Friend is one which it would be possible for the Government to accept, and I doubt whether my hon. Friends who are supporting that particular Amendment would press it upon the Government if 1459 they fully realised its effect. One effect of that proposal would be that it would give an additional preference to sugar refined by British refiners, and it would absolutely upset the whole basis of Imperial preference. After all Imperial preference is a preference on the products of the British Empire, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley is proposing is upon a totally different basis, namely, that preference should be given on products from everywhere.
§ Mr. HANNONWe should be prepared to confine our proposals to raw sugar from British sources.
§ Mr. MCNEILLThe method suggested by my hon. Friend alters the whole basis of our proposals. If on account of the position of the industry you were to propose that sugar coming from Cuba should be given something in addition to Imperial Preference, on what ground could you resist a demand made that chocolate makers should have a Preference on Brazilian cocoa under similar circumstances? That proposal is one which would be very expensive and it would upset our system of Imperial Preference. For that reason I cannot accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has put down on the Paper. For the reasons I have stated, I think my hon. Friends have misconceived the situation, and if help of any sort is to be given to the British refining industry, it will have to be given by some other method.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSI do not think the Financial Secretary has in any way exaggerated the situation. He has told us that the sugar-refining industry is in a precarious condition. I believe I am correct in saying that the state of things in the sugar-refining industry in Great Britain to-day is unique in the annals of this country. The sugar-refining industry to-day has not only to compete with the natural competition of foreign countries, but it has also to compete with the sugar grown in this country as a direct result of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The subsidy given by the Government is practically equal in amount to the price of the raw sugar. Not only do those engaged in the sugar industry have the benefit of this large subsidy, but they also have the benefit of the Preference 1460 Clause adopted by the present Government. In addition to all this, a number of fortunate firms engaged in this industry in this country have secured large sums of public money under the Trade Facilities Act, against the passing of which we strongly protested from the Liberal Benches. The result is that about 250,000 tons of sugar, refined by British factories, comes on the maket within three months.
That large quantity of home-grown sugar comes on the market and it competes with the firms who have produced sugar without any assistance from the Government. The amount of money paid in the shape of the sugar subsidy by the Government is about £4,000,000. So far as the refiners of sugar in this country are concerned, the situation is that they are faced with artificially-created competition, which has been brought about at the expense of the British taxpayer. The other form of competition is that brought about by Empire products. It is true that our Colonies are benefiting by this arrangement, but the people of this country are suffering in consequence. The system of Preference which has been adopted by the Government has thrown a large number of people out of work in Greenock, and that is not an exaggerated statement. I am sure hon. Members opposite will not be pleased to hear that statement. I know that when they started the policy of Preference they did not anticipate that it would have a result of that kind. The Financial Secretary has already stated that he cannot accept the method suggested by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), but there is another simple remedy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can carry into effect if he likes. The House will remember that when the Corn Production Act became law a heavy burden was thrown on the taxpayers, and the Government in 1922 was obliged to repeal that Act because it was found to be too heavy a burden for the taxpayers of this country to bear.
With that very recent precedent before them, the Government would be quite justified in repealing the Beet Sugar Act of 1924, thus sweeping away the sugar subsidy which has cost the country £4,000,000 this year, and at the same time they would be placing the new sugar industry on the same footing as the 1461 refining industry which has grown up under natural conditions in this country. The Government can well afford to abolish the sugar subsidy. I know I should be out of Order if I read to the Committee the profits which these particular firms have been able to make directly as a result of the policy of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is being pressed for money from all sides, and here is a case which offers an opportunity for economy. Would not any Member of this House engaged in business feel a deep sense of injustice if the British Government were first of all to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers to create artificial trading conditions for certain businesses in this country, and give other industries, particularly in our Dominions, special privileges in our home markets. I cannot believe there is a single Member of the Committee who does not agree with me when I say that that would be a great injustice.
But there is a much larger question than that. The hon. Member for Moseley is anxious to move his Amendment which he considered would protect the sugar refining industry. I would like to point out that we are suffering very much in Greenock from the policy of the Government. At one time we had five sugar refineries and they are now reduced to two. For these reasons I am not prepared to vote for protection for the sugar refining industry. We have to consider not only the interests of one part of the industry but the interests of the people of Great Britain. Here is one of the most striking examples of the policy of preference in operation, and it is clear that that policy is hurting not only our own people at the expense of the taxpayers but it is also hurting the industries of this country. We have often said that once you start a policy of protection, you are entering upon a slippery slope. How far you are going to slide down that slope I do not know. The Financial Secretary has truly stated that the Amendment we are discussing would cost over £1,000,000 if adopted, but why not reverse the policy which has been adopted by the Government and go back to the traditional policy of Great Britain under which the sugar refiners have built up their industry.
The Financial Secretary himself admits that these sugar refiners have been 1462 placed in a precarious position by the policy of the Government. I am not prepared to vote for the Amendment now before the Committee. I know that the Corporation of Greenock and all allied interests are anxious for this Amendment to be carried, but if once you depart from the policy of Free Trade and give a temporary advantage to one industry, the door will be wide open, and you will be pledged to that policy in the future. In Greenock a large number of men and women have been thrown out of work by the policy of the Government. Through the subsidy the taxpayers have poured out £4,000,000 to the home-grown sugar industry in this country, and they have also given a preference to those unfortunate people in the Mauritius and the West Indies; but this Committee should not overlook the fact that the policy which has been adopted by the Government in regard to the sugar industry has thrown out of work a large number of people in this country.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERThe hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) has put the ease of the British sugar refiners very forcibly and the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the statements put forward by the last speaker. I think on inquiry the right hon. Gentleman will find that in regard to the refineries in Greenock, three have been closed down within the last three years as a result of the policy adopted by the Government. I support the hon. Member for Greenock in his attacks upon the Government for the policy which they have adopted towards the old British sugar refinery industry. He takes the view that the Government's policy has helped to ruin them by subsidising other forms of sugar production and refinery in this country, and, secondly, that it has helped to further put the old refinery industries on the road to ruin, by giving preference to sugar from the Dominions which is not now confined to raw sugar but also includes manufactured sugar. Therefore the Government have given an unfair advantage to sugar from Mauritius and the Dominions and to the beet sugar industry in this country as against the old British sugar refining industry. Moreover, they have stabilised that preference for 10 years.
1463 I hope now that I have made the position perfectly clear to the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. The statement of the hon. Member for Greenock is therefore true when he says that the development of the policy of Imperial Preference has so far as one can see led to unemployment in this country and assisted in the financial ruin of one of the oldest industries we have. I spent my boyhood days in the ancient City of Bristol which had one of the first sugar refining factories in this country as a result of its early connections with the West Indies. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was not going in your day!"] It was going when I was a boy at school. That closed down with other refineries as a result of world factors in the sugar producing and refining industries. But as a result of the Convention of 1903, a substantial part of the industry was saved and until recently there were five refineries in Greenock. Three have closed down in the last three years. The policy of Imperial Preference has destroyed any chance of the development of this old industry.
My position is this. I could not possibly accept the remedy suggested in the new Clause—(Reduced Duty on Sugar refined in the United Kingdom)—on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). I have to take exactly the same view as the Member for Greenock. I am asked by a large Co-operative Society in Greenock to support that Amendment because of their interest in a local industry but from the point of view of national interests and national economy I must give my support to the Amendment we are discussing. On the one hand I am in the position of being asked by one local co-operative society of about 5,000 to 20,000 members to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Moseley, and on the other hand we have 5,250,000 consumers who oppose any attempt to take any more from them in the way of taxation which does not reach the Treasury as revenue. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Moseley and his friends, but if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not do anything else, he could at least help the position of the British refining industry—although I do not suggest this 1464 would be at all an adequate help—by removing the preference on refined sugar. There would then be some prospect for the old British industry. He may consider that this Government has pledged itself for 10 years to the stabilisation or the Imperial Preference to the Colonial sugar industry and from his interjection I observe the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies cares nothing at all for the misery and suffering of the unemployed in East London, Liverpool and Greenock because he is able—I use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—to make out an academic case for imperial Preference.
The real remedy is to put these people carrying on the refining industry in this country on an equality with regard to refined sugar with the rest of the Empire and not by increasing the tax to the consumer. The remedy lies in removing the preference now given to a particular section of the refined sugar industry and put British refiners a reasonable basis of competition with the other classes of the sugar refining industry in the Empire. The result of the Government's policy is that one part of the refining industry is in a state of great prosperity resulting from the Sugar Act of 1925 and the other part of the industry is almost in a state of starvation and decay. That is surely a very great reflection on the Government. Here are two or three instances of the prosperity of one section of the sugar industry resulting from the Government policy. The Cantley Beet Sugar Factory for 1926–27 has a disposable surplus of £246,000 of which they are placing to reserve £156,000 after paying 20 per cent. on the share capital.
§ Sir FREDRIC WISEIs that free of Income Tax?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERYes, I understand so, after placing £156,000 to reserve. Here is the case of Ely which shows a surplus of £215,000 and after paying 12½ per cent. on the share capital free of tax, I understand they have placed £600,000 to reserve. The Ipswich factory has a surplus of £215,000 and after paying 12½ per cent. have placed £67,000 to reserve. So that this part of the sugar industry is in a positron of taking from the taxpayer by means of the subsidy and preferential treatment large sums of money, and of being able to recoup themselves 1465 completely to the extent of the whole of the share capital of these concerns plus the profits distributed. Therefore at the end of 10 years if the subsidy is stopped they will have completely recouped themselves out of the taxpayers' pocket and be able to get out without any loss. If the Government do not change their policy in the meantime the British refining industry will have been ruined and be unable to restart. Some of us on these benches knew in 1925 what the result of the Government policy would be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not say so at the time?"] If the hon. Member had supported the Amendment we proposed at the time to safeguard the whole community by taking a share in the capital assets created we would have had some safeguard, but the whole country is being denuded of these sums of money to provide immunity for the capital for private companies. It seems to me we have to-day seen the first fruits of the policy of what I may call discrimination in industry which must always sooner or later become part of the policy of the Protectionists. That is one reason why we are moving to repeal the Sugar Duty to-day. I agree that at this stage it would be impossible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to accept this Amendment without recasting the whole of the Budget but it was impossible for us to raise this question on the Budget Resolution. From our point of view this question is not academic but is a vital question. Under the present system we are precluded from raising the sugar question on the Budget Resolution and that is why we are raising it to-day. But even if the duty cannot be abolished this year if the right hon. Gentleman is really sympathetic he could undertake that it should be done next year if there is money on hand.
§ Mr. MCNEILLindicated dissent.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI am sorry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, because I remember in 1925 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would move in that direction if he had money on hand. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that so much of our present financial condition is due to the events of last year, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to balance his Budget this year without any increase of direct taxation. If there 1466 is a balance on the Budget next year I think the Government ought to consider the abolition of this duty.
§ Mr. MCNEILLI do not think I would be justified in saying that we shall have next year £19,000,000 to play with.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI seem to have heard that same prophecy from quite different sources. I should be sorry, myself, if we had not a balance in hand. I want to see a balance in hand in order that we may attack the general level of taxation, but particularly indirect taxation. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has raised one or two points in his speech which I should like to answer. He says we always attach too much importance to the relative pressure of taxation which is imposed upon the whole community in its relation to the poor. He said we ought always to have regard to what other taxation is imposed on every other section of the community. Now I think that is a very fallacious argument. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself, who has written so much upon various questions of this sort—at least, I gather so from things which I have read and which were written by him in an encyclopædia—would never be able to get away from the principle that taxation should be levied upon the basis of ability to pay.
§ Mr. MCNEILLI agree.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI am glad the Financial Secretary agrees. How are we to judge of the ability to pay? Would it not be a better manner of judging whether the taxation is based upon that principle by ascertaining what a person has left to spend after paying his taxation? The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unfair to say that a person who has an income of £100 pays a greater proportion of taxation than the person with an income of £100,000 who has to pay Super-tax. Now I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that a working-class family with £100 a year, with a man and his wife and, say, six children in the household, are paying Sugar Duty at the rate of 1¼d. a lb., a duty which averages 10s. per head of the population. Therefore, the effect of that tax upon that household of eight people is £4 per annum, and on the top of that you have the Tea Duty and the Tobacco Duty, and so on. You will see that when these 1467 indirect taxes have been paid by a man with only £100 a year he has very little left to maintain what we would regard as a minimum standard of life, whereas the richer person who may have paid all the same taxes of which we complain—these indirect taxes—and may have also paid Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties, has so much left that he can enjoy a very comfortable state of life indeed. That is the whole question.
§ Mr. MCNEILLThe hon. Gentleman is proceeding on the same principle as I advocate. He is taking the Sugar Duty, the Tea Duty and the Tobacco Duty and stating that they are imposing a heavy burden upon a working-class family. I do not contest that. But he is now taking exactly the same argument which I used, namely, that in estimating the effect of a tax like the Sugar Duty you must take account of the general effect of taxation.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThat is very clever of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think the Committee will recollect that his real argument was directed not to indirect taxation but to the cumulative effect of indirect and direct taxation—a general conspectus of taxation as a whole. That is the point. What I want to put before the Committee is our case that this and all other taxes pressing upon the food of the people ought to be repealed, and then we should raise our taxation by means of a direct system in relation to the income and the standard of life which would then be available to the person after the payment of such taxation. That is our case, and I believe it is a sound case. There is one other point I want to make and it is this. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures in the case submitted by the sugar-refiners to him last year, and brought up to date this year, he will see that as a result of the reduction by so large an amount of the Sugar Duty in 1924, the consumption in this country has very largely increased. In 1924, the deliveries for home consumption were 16,042 tons. In 1925, they were 18,003 tons, and last year they were 18,037 tons. That is to say, they have been going up each year. If we had a progressive decline in the taxation of sugar we should get a still further extension of the sugar industry and ancillary industries without leading to injustice 1468 to the common people in regard to an article of food which is of very great value to them. For all these reasons, I regret the fact that, while I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment to-day, he has not given us a much more definite assurance of what the Government may be able to do in the future.
§ Sir B. PETOI think the Committee will feel that after the two speeches of considerable length from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) who are both in the main agreed in their attitude on the sugar duty as a whole, and also on the Clause to which the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) referred in his speech, it would not be unreasonable that we should have for a few moments some reply to what I regard as the fallacies upon which their arguments were based. The hon. Member for Greenock traced the whole of the trouble in his constituency and other sugar refining centres here to what he called the policy of tariffs and preference. He also threw upon the present Government the whole onus of the subsidy to which he strongly objects as a policy. The two hon. Members must settle that difficulty among themselves, because it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Socialist Government who started the subsidy, and that forms no part of the general policy of tariffs and Imperial Preference, but was an alternative to a higher rate of tariff and a larger preference, of which the Socialists, and not the Conservative party, were in favour.
The hon. Member attributed the whole of the disasters to our domestic trade to the policy of preference. I think he was entirely wrong, for this reason. I quite agree that if you put on a tax in a clumsy form it is very likely to produce a result which you do not intend. You must recognise the fact that in a pound of refined sugar you have two sets of industries engaged—the industry which produces the sugar, and the one which refines it. The refiners estimate the net value and amount of labour in refining at, roughly, one-third of the value of the finished product. You will then see that it is the method by which the preference has been given and the duty is raised which is doing the injury to your home production. You have a comparatively small 1469 sugar-refining industry in some of the Colonies. You have a large and old-established sugar-refining industry in this country in various centres, and it seems perfectly clear that it is a wrong and clumsy method of charging this duty and making this preference if while you are giving something which is tending to give a preference upon sugar production you are doing it in such a way as not only not to encourage, but in the long run to make it certain that the refinement of the sugar shall be done abroad where it gets the full advantage of this very valuable preference, and will not be done in this country where, unless the hon. Member's Amendment, or something like it, is carried, they can have no similar preference.
The reason you have in the Amendment that the amount is to be one-third of the amount of the preference is the reason that I have already indicated, namely, that the amount of the value of the labour concerned in the refinement is, roughly, one-third of the value of the whole product. The hon. Member for Greenock quoted the history of the Corn Production Act in support of his argument that as this method of Imperial Preference and fostering the production of sugar in this country has lamentably failed, and that the whole of what he calls this mistaken policy should be scrapped. I would remind the Committee of the fact that our agricultural industry in this country is not exactly in a flourishing condition, and there is nothing which produces such disastrous results as a policy of chopping and changing; first of all, having based the industry upon a huge subsidy, and then withdrawing that subsidy suddenly when you find it costs a great deal of money, and leaving the wretched industry struggling. I do not think the history of the Corn Production Act of the Coalition Government is a very good example for the Financial Secretary to follow in this respect. The real remedy for this trouble is to look at what is the cause, and the cause really is that the method of imposing this tariff and of giving this preference to our Dominions and Colonies is a method which wants looking into further.
What my hon. Friend suggests is a Clause which would balance in favour of the home refiners the advantage you 1470 give to the refiners in the Dominions. What we really want to do, in my opinion, is to encourage the production of sugar in the Dominions, but if they want to refine they should refine on level terms with our people in this country. The Financial Secretary said that the sugar refiners here were suffering from very severe competition. They would not complain of severe competition. As the hon. Member for Greenock says, the whole of this industry was built up in face of severe competition, but they have never had such unfair competition to face as they have at the present moment, and it is the method of charging the duty that needs correcting, and not the whole policy which requires to be scrapped.
I only want to refer to one other thing which the Financial Secretary said. He spoke of the loss of revenue that would result. I do beg that when we consider this question from the point of view of loss of revenue, we shall not shut our eyes to the fact that there is a counterbalancing, and, very often, a superior amount of revenue which the Exchequer will lose if they just let the industry die. How much will the Exchequer lose if sugar refining in this country is wiped out? That is the real position. I should not be at all surprised to find that, apart from the loss of employment to the people, the actual financial loss due to such a disastrous policy would be a great deal more than £1,100,000 or £1,400,000, which was the estimated loss to the revenue due to my hon. Friend's Clause.
With regard to the main question before the Committee—the abolition of all the Sugar Duties—I want to say something which my hon. Friends may regard as rather heterodox. I believe there is no duty in the whole of our taxation at the present time which is giving indirectly greater benefit to the working classes in this country than the Sugar Duty which the hon. Member for Hillsborough says falls so heavily on the working-class families. If you test it right through, it is on the basis of the tariff backed up by the subsidy that this great sugar industry is being built up in this country. Also you have to consider that on the preference side of it you are giving to our Colonies and Dominions a market in this country which will enable them to employ 1471 British labour in buying manufactured goods from them. That is a side of the thing which is always overlooked. It is no good counting up how many pence per week it costs to working-class families; you must look at the whole thing, including the preference and including the effect of the duty on the building up of a great industry in this country; you must look at the whole effect of it, and all its ramifications on employment and the finding of wages for the people of this country.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWhen the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the duty by nearly two-thirds, employment and production in the industries which used jam and used sugar as an ingredient increased by over 50 per cent.
§ Sir B. PETOI have no doubt there are some advantages to be placed on the other side of the account. But what I am asking the hon. Member is that in considering this question he should not look only on one side of the account. He was concentrating to-day on the fact that this duty was a heavy charge on working-class families. In taking that argument it is just as well to see what the average working-class family gets out of the system which enables us to give a preference to our Dominions and to find a market for the products of British labour. I do not wish further to detain the Committee, except merely to say that if my hon. Friend moves his Clause, as I hope he will, I shall feel bound to support it. But I feel there is no Motion which could be moved which would be more easy for me to oppose than the proposal of the present moment, which practically destroys the whole basis of preference and the building up of the sugar industry in this country, and would mean an immediate loss to the Revenue of £19,000,000 as proposed by the hon. Member opposite.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PALINGI desire to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one question. I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and particularly to the speeches of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). It 1472 strikes me that the situation in the refining industry of the country must be pretty bad. I understand that a large proportion of men have been thrown out of work in Greenock and in London, and I understand that a large number of men have been thrown out of work in Silvertown. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the proportion of the number of factories that have been closed down, or the proportion of the industry that has had to cease work directly as the result of this sugar subsidy. If he cannot tell us that, I would like to know the approximate number of men thrown out of work as the result of the policy of the Government. I would also like him to reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. That point was in regard to the huge amount of profit which is being made by the people in this new sugar beet industry, and, if, when the subsidy is finished, it will result in these people having recouped themselves so handsomely that, in 10 years' time, they will clear out, leaving the industry derelict.
§ Mr. J. JONESI represent a constituency which has a greater number of people employed in this industry than any other constituency in Great Britain, and I think that on that account I ought to be able to know something about it. I have always been under the impression that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were great advocates of high wages and good conditions of employment. I happen to belong to a union which has in its membership the biggest proportion of men employed in this industry, and after 30 years of hard struggling we have managed to establish something like reasonable conditions of employment in the matter of hours and of wages. Conditions are immeasurably superior to those which used to exist in the industry before the men and women were organised. Now we find that this is not a subsidy for the purpose of helping the workers of Great Britain to live under better conditions, but the benefit of the subsidy is going to people who are working under worse conditions, people over whose labour conditions we have no control and in regard to whom we have nothing to say. There is no question of the legal restriction of the hours of 1473 labour or voluntary agreement between unions and employers on this matter. It is a question of each for himself and the Devil take the hindmost. These people are able to make profits not by legitimate trading but because the Government is finding the means for them to do it. I quite see by the advertisements in the financial Press what the inevitable consequence is going to be when the limit is reached and the subsidy period expires. They will unload, like all clever business people, but they will unload at the sacrifice of the people who have built up the industry.
In my constituency casual labour is becoming almost a permanent feature in this industry. When the beet-sugar season is on a man finds that it is almost impossible to get a full week's work. At some periods of the year these men are off work for a week at a time, simply because of the influx of the products of cheaper labour. The employers are bound to take advantage of the competitive conditions in which they find themselves. When the market is glutted by a certain amount of cheaper labour they say: "We are in the position of not being able to carry on the refineries. We will close down for a week at a time." The employers will not grumble. I had a letter from employers in my constituency. I am not an employers man, but I do try to be reasonable and to recognise their position while being fair to the workers, as much as I can. I always contend, however, that the first charge on the industry must be a decent standard of living for the people who work in the industry. But now what do we find? We find old-established firms like Tate & Lyle amalgamating because of the competition between themselves and because of the competition they have to face. They have formed a combine, but they found, as that began to develop and as this new system came into existence, that they were compelled to go further and invest in this beet-sugar industry and try to make the best of both worlds. They found the subsidy working in an opposite direction to that which they imagined. The people under whom this industry is being controlled are not the people in Great Britain. Those people are dominated by outside influences over whom we have no control and the subsidy 1474 is going to their benefit. I am not a prejudiced person in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman can devise some scheme by which everybody can be treated fairly he will find that he will obtain the support of many Members of this House, but all these fancy schemes of protection are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Therefore, I suggest, however much it may be necessary to try to revive agriculture—and agriculture wants reviving, but who are responsible for the position of agriculture? There is the party opposite, which has been the special Godfather—
§ Mr. HANNONYour Free Trade friends below the Gangway are the party who have been in power for generations past.
§ Mr. JONESYou have come into power since with a majority of 220 and there has been a kind of 50–50 arrangement between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. The Liberal party has been in power for half the time and you have been in power for half the time. The Liberal party has been the Free Trade party part of the time. You have been a Protectionist party all of the time.
§ Mr. HANNONHear, hear!
§ Mr. JONESYes, I know, but where is the protection for agriculture? Why whine and complain about the condition of agriculture? If, as you say, you have the power to alter it, why do not you do so? If your theories are correct, agriculture should be the most flourishing industry in the country, but, as a matter of fact, you have gone from confusion to confusion and the last state of the people is worse than the first. Farmers are doing badly and never knew when they were doing well. Like most other people, they are always on the threshold of bankruptcy, but the only people to suffer in the first place are the workpeople. When trade is bad the people responsible for manufacturing and for carrying on business begin to economise always on the people whom they employ. Profits must be the first consideration and the working man must suffer. Therefore, we say that so far as this subsidy is concerned its consequences have been that the working people have got low wages 1475 and have to work longer hours for other people to get higher wages and work shorter hours. That was not the idea of those who originally made these proposals. They were always telling people that if only they had Protection and Preference the working men in this country would have higher wages and better conditions. That has been their argument all through, but in this particular case it has not worked quite that way. Unemployment is becoming more general and the employers have said that they cannot continue to pay the wages which they used to pay because they have to face not merely the competition of the subsidised industry in our own country —in the agricultural areas where wages are based on the agricultural wages, if they give 2s. a week more to the beet sugar industry they think that they are paying a decent wage—but the competition from abroad. The Colonies are getting the benefit of this preference and they are getting the benefit of the competitive subsidy in the markets of the world. We are hit both ways. We have unfair competition subsidised by the Government at home and we have preference subsidising the worst kind of industry in the other countries. If hon. Members opposite can devise sonic method whereby the workers of this country will get a square deal we will argue out the point with them.
§ Mr. HANNONWe have always stood for a square deal.
§ Mr. JONESFor a square-headed deal, generally to the advantage of the square-headed men! The workers of this country are not getting a square deal in this case. When we find our factories closing down and working short time without a subsidy and getting no help from the Government or anybody else, and all that the worker gets is a ticket for the Employment Exchange, and he is lucky if he can qualify for benefit under the restrictions laid down, we say that, so far as the worker is concerned, he is getting no advantage from the subsidy and justice is not being done to our own people. This Parliament is not out to give something away to somebody else; if we have anything to give away we ought to give it to our own people, and we ought to help our own people.
Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELLI used to know something about the sugar trade and, therefore, I am rather interested in listening to this discussion. To begin with, may I say that there is no man in any part of the Committee who is satisfied with the big profits that are being made by the sugar beet companies. These big profits mean that the farmer is not getting a square deal and that the farmer is not getting the price he ought to get for his beet. I am perfectly certain that the farmer will see that he gets far more out of it than he has done in the past and he will see that all the profits do not go to the sugar beet companies.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERWhat about the labourers' wages?
Sir W. LANE MITCHELLI have finished with that. Then the other point is as to whether the existence of preference, and one thing and another, has anything to do with the closing down of the refineries. I had a good deal to do with this over 30 years ago, and then there were fewer refineries than there are now. I went on the Continent to try and find out what was the cost of growing beet, and I came back with a report that the cost was 9s. 4d. per cwt. and within six months, owing to heavy crops, beet was selling at 5s. per cwt. and sugar being retailed at one penny per pound. The result is that cheap sugar is coming into the country, and, instead of coming in as raw beet as it used to do, and then be refined here, it is coming in as refined sugar and our refineries cannot get the raw material to enable us to compete against the refined sugar which is coming in. That is what has been going on. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) spoke of Bristol as a refinery town. So it used to be in the old days when sugar came in unrefined, but when sugar came in refined then the Bristol refineries had to shut down. That is the reason. The hon. Member for Hillsborough only wants cheap sugar; he does not care a hang where it is refined.
§ Sir G. COLLINSThat was the state of things 30 years ago. Let me just point out what is the state of things today. This year 38 per cent. of the sugar consumed in this country was refined here. Last year 45 per cent. of the sugar consumed here was refined here and the 1477 year before that 55 per cent., so that in three years there has been a drop from 55 per cent. to 38 per cent.
Sir W. LANE MITCHELLBefore the War Europe produced about 7,000,000 tons of sugar. Czechoslovakia, as it now is, Germany and Russia, sent to us refined sugar, but when the War started that was stopped, and the Continent produced about 2,000,000 tons instead of 7,000,000 tons. The Continent now has got back to its 7,000,000 tons and it is pouring in refined sugar, and it is because the refined sugar is coming in that these refineries are not able to work. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) spoke about Tate and Lyle about 30 years ago. They were not there. You had Duncan and Martineau, who are now out of the business.
§ Mr. J. JONESI have lived in West Ham longer than that and they were there then.
Sir W. LANE MITCHELLDuncan is out of it. They came from the North. It is the importation of refined sugar that has taken away refining from the refineries, and you cannot keep it out. The hon. Member for Hillsborough wants cheap sugar, but he does not care where it is refined. It is desirable that the factories should refine their own sugar on the spot. Look at the expense of sending the raw sugar to the refineries. The practical way to handle sugar is to do the refining where you get the raw material, and it is doing that that has hurt the refiners. I am sorry for it. It is that reason that brought me to London. I should not be here but for that.
§ Mr. THURTLEI think the discussion that has just taken place ought to convince the Committee of the collossal folly it perpetrated when it agreed to the beet-sugar subsidy. It is about the most outrageous fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the nation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot allow the discussion to develop into one on the subsidy in the sugar beet industry.
§ Mr. THURTLEIt is rather late in the day to restrict the Debate in that 1478 manner. I have heard a number of other speakers range practically over the whole field of the sugar subsidy, and as I appear to be about the last speaker to take part in the discussion, it seems unreasonable that I should be circumscribed in that manner.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member ought not to say that. I was particularly careful to see that Members did not go too far into the question. But the hon. Member was commencing his speech purely on the question of the beet sugar subsidy. I reminded him that the Clause was not in reference to that, but only indirectly connected with it.
§ Mr. THURTLEI agree that the object of the discussion is to try to find some remedy for the great unemployment that exists in connection with the sugar refining industry. I have gathered from the speeches of other Members that one of the causes of that very acute unemployment in the sugar refining industry is the sugar beet subsidy. I merely wanted to point out how complicated this business of the subsidy is. In order to get rid of unemployment, we were induced to agree to the subsidy, and we now find that as the result of it greater unemployment has been created. I wish to make a comparison between the unemployment that exists in the sugar refining industry caused by the beet sugar subsidy and the employment that has been provided as the result of that subsidy, in order to show that instead of gaining we lose on balance. According to figures which have been given me by the Minister of Agriculture, there were last year employed in the sugar beet industry 6,500 people. As I understand it, there are very many more people being displaced from employment in the sugar refining industry as a consequence of the subsidy. So that so far from there being a gain in employment, there has been a net loss.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONHas the hon. Member made any allowance for the numbers of agricultural workers engaged in the production of sugar beet? Has he any authoritative figures?
§ Mr. THURTLESince my hon. Friend has raised the question of the agricultural labourer, I might perhaps be permitted in two or three sentences to explain the 1479 position. According to the Minister of Agriculture, we paid by way of subsidy last year over £3,000,000—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot allow this to develop into a Debate on the sugar subsidy. It is really only indirectly affected.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I make this one single point. If you wipe out entirely the cost of agricultural labour in the production of sugar beet, assume all that is saved by the sugar beet subsidy, and take the remainder, you find that for every man who has been provided with employment in the sugar beet industry last year for a period of 16 weeks, because that is the length of the season, the State provided a subsidy of £260.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI cannot allow the hon. Member to make these remarks. There will be half-a-dozen Members who will want to answer the hon. Member, and the Debate will develop into quite a different channel from that to which it ought to be confined.
§ Mr. THURTLEI think I have made my point, which was that over £16 per week has been paid by way of subsidy to every man who has found employment under the beet sugar scheme.
§ Mr. MCNEILLMay I call attention to the position we are in with regard to business this evening. In answer to an appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before yesterday, it was arranged that we should continue this Clause to-day. There could be nothing in the nature of a definite undertaking, but there was something in the nature of an understanding that we should get the Bill by a quarter past eight. We are still on the first Clause and various speeches which have been made, including that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, show what an immense field there legitimately is for a discussion of this sort. We might go on till 10 o'clock discussing this question of sugar with its various ramifications, and there is an immense number of other Clauses on the Paper. I have not the presumption to make an appeal, as I have no ground of complaint, but perhaps I might point out that if we get to about midnight with still a large amount of work in front of us it will be hardly fair to appeal to the Government to prolong the Debate again. We must get through our business to-night even if we have to sit to a late hour.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128, Noes, 245.
1483| Division No. 245.] | AYES. | [5.25 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | England, Colonel A. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lawson, John James |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Gardner, J. P. | Lee, F. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gillett, George M. | Lowth, T. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lunn, William |
| Baker, Walter | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillory) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Barnes, A. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Groves, T. | MacNeill-welr, L. |
| Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Grundy, T. W. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Broad, F. A. | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | March, S. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney 4 Shetland) | Maxton, James |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hardie, George D. | Morris, R. H. |
| Buchanan, G. | Harris, Percy A. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Hayday, Arthur | Murnin, H. |
| Cape, Thomas | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Cluse, W. s. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hirst, G. H. | Palin, John Henry |
| Compton, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Paling, W. |
| Connolly, M. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan) |
| Cove, W. G. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Potts, John s. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Soring) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Ritson. J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd) | Rose, Frank H. |
| Dennison, R. | Kelly, W. T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Duncan, C. | Kennedy, T. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Edge, Sir William | Kirkwood, D. | Sexton, James |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Lansbury, George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Strauss, E. A. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Sutton, J. E. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Taylor, R. A. | Whiteley, W. |
| Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Sitch. Charles H. | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Townend, A. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Varley, Frank B. | Windsor, Walter |
| Snell, Harry | Viant, S. P. | Wright, W. |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wallhead, Richard C. | |
| Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stephen, Campbell | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wedgwood,Rt. Hon. Josiah | Hayes |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Davidson. J. (Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Albery, Irving James | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Eden, Captain Anthony | Long, Major Eric |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Ellis, R. G. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Apsley, Lord | Elveden, Viscount | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Lumley, L. R. |
| Atkinson, C. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Everard, W. Lindsay | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus |
| Balniel, Lord | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Macintyre, Ian |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fanshawe, Captain G. D. | McLean, Major A. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Fielden, E. B. | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Finburgh, S. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm |
| Bennett, A. J. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Mc Neill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Fraser, Captain Ian | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Berry. Sir George | Gadie, Lieut-Col. Anthony | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Bethel, A. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gates, Percy | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Meller, R. J. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Gower, Sir Robert | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Grace, John | Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Buchan, John | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C. |
| Burman, J. B. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Burney, Lieut-Com. Charles D. | Grotrian, H. Brant | Morrison-Bell, sir Arthur Clive |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Harrison, G. J. C. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Hartington, Marquess of | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Campbell, E. T. | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kinnington) | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Cecil, RT. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hills, Major John Waller | Perring, Sir William George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Holt, Capt H. P. | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Christie, J. A. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Radford, E. A. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Ramsden, E. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips | Hume, Sir G. H. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Remnant, Sir James |
| Cope, Major William | Hurd, Percy A. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Couper, J. B. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) | Jacob, A. E. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford) |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Ropner, Major L. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Rye, F G. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Ltndsey, Gainsbro) | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Cunliffe, Sir Herbert | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lamb, J. Q. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Sandon, Lord | Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Savery, S. S. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie | Tinne, J. A. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Withers, John James |
| Shepperson, E. W. | Vauglian-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Skelton, A. N. | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Slaney, Major P. Kenyon | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak) |
| Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Smithers, Waldron | Watts, Dr. T. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wells, S. R. | |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Wheler, Major Sir Granvllle C. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple- | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | Mr. F. C. Thomson |
| Streatfeild, Captain S. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |