§ 53. Mr. MACLEANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Lincolnshire Beet-Sugar Company, Limited, have placed orders for sugar machinery capable of dealing with 1,000 tons of beet per day with an American firm, he will say whether there are any conditions placed on an industry that is enjoying a subsidy that the necessary plant and machinery used shall be manufactured in the country which is paying the subsidy?
Mr. GUINNESSIf the hon. Member is referring to the factory already erected by the Lincolnshire Beet Sugar Company at Bardney, I am satisfied that this factory has complied with Section 1 (2) (b) of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, which provides that not less than 75 per cent. of the plant and machinery installed in the factory for the manufacture of sugar and molasses shall consist of plant and machinery wholly manufactured in Great Britain. I am advised that 90 per cent. of the machinery installed in this factory is of British origin.
§ during the year 1927–28, and the aggregate amount of grants awarded in respect thereof?
Mr. GUINNESSWith the hon. Baronet's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the information desired.
§ Following is the statement:
§ Mr. MACLEANHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a speech of the chairman of this company delivered at the annual meeting a fortnight ago in which he stated that they had given orders to an American firm, which he named, for the installation of the latest and most up-to-date plant? Cannot that plant be manufactured in this country by British firms? Was not that the purpose of the subsidy?
Mr. GUINNESSThe plant is manufactured in this country up to 90 per cent. of it. I think the hon. Member has in view a statement that the Dyer Company of New York has been concerned in the design, but I understand the contract was sub-let to Messrs. Robert McAlpine and Sons, and they manufactured the plant.
§ Mr. MACLEANIs not the statement of the right hon. Gentleman incorrect? Was not Messrs. Robert McAlpine and Sons' contract for the erection of the factory, whereas the Dyer Company were concerned with the design and supply of machinery which is a different thing entirely?
Mr. GUINNESSThe information I have is that 90 per cent. of the machinery is of British manufacture.
§ Mr. MACLEANWill the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into this matter and give the information to the House?
Sir F. HALLIs there not some mistake? Are not Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons builders, and not engineers? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the terms of the agreement and the subsidy are being adhered to?
Mr. GUINNESSThe question on the Paper deals with plant and machinery. No doubt McAlpine's are chiefly concerned with the plant. The total plant and machinery are to the extent of 90 per cent. of British production.
§ Mr. MACLEANMay I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to my question, which says nothing about plant? It only deals with machinery.
Mr. GUINNESSIf the hon. Member will look at the last line but one in the question, he will see that it mentions plant and machinery.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONMay I ask why the right hon. Gentleman persistently declines to consider the annual purchase of about 1,000,000 jute bags as a necessary part of the plant?