DUMPING OF FOREIGN CEREALS.

HC Deb 26 November 1930 vol 245 cc1341-99

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT

I beg to move, That this House deplores the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs. In rising to submit the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper in my name, I should like to preface my remarks by expressing the hope that nothing I shall say this afternoon in criticising the respective systems of England and Russia, from which country the principal dumping comes, may be construed, or rather misconstrued, as a reflection upon the Russian people. For the Russian people I have, as I have for all people, the most sincere respect, and for them I have the greatest sympathy in their present difficulties. But my duty to-day is to discuss the particular bearing of dumping of cereals on the English market, and, as the outstanding example is the dumping of Russian cereals, particularly wheat, I have no other recourse than to enter into a somewhat close examination and analysis of Soviet policy and Soviet methods. Before doing so, however, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the present depressed condition of British agriculture. There we find, owing to the fact that agricultural interests are being sacrificed to the popular cry of cheap food, that the arable acreage is rapidly dwindling, and that the land is going back to grass and diminishing the wealth and employment which the countryside should normally derive and afford.

The balancing factor of this situation is, in our opinion, the question of wheat, and, as our Leader has stated, we think that a guaranteed price is needed for English-grown wheat for milling purposes, in order to bring the arable country back under the plough, and so relieve the mixed farming districts of the competition which has resulted. I have always held the opinion that the standard of the well-being of our people is largely dependent upon the relation of production to consumption, upon the relation of supply to demand, and so it seems to me that, in order to preserve an adequate balance between these two economic factors, the home market should be conserved to the home producer, for it is only in this way that the earning power of our people dependent upon industry can be maintained at its relative level. The facts of the case are briefly as follow: Out of the 71,000,000 cwts. of wheat imported into this country for the nine months ending 30th September, 3,500,000 came from Russia at a price of about 26s. a quarter, which is just about one-half the cost of production of wheat in England at the present time. Since those figures were obtained, I have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade has stated, in reply to a question, that for the three months ending 31st October last, the consignments of wheat from the Soviet Union amounted to 5,825,000 cwts. of an average declared value of 6s. 9d. per cwt., which indicates the increased quantities of wheat thrown upon the market by the Soviet Government, which has the complete monopoly of its foreign trade both in imports and in exports.

Hon. Members have, probably, every right to challenge my definition of dumping, which, as a matter of fact, is a pretty well-understood term to-day, so I took the opportunity of looking up the definition in the dictionary last night. I find that Murray's English Dictionary, Volume III, states that dumping is the action of the word 'dump'; bringing down in a heavy mass deposits of rubbish, etc.; a heap of material flung down or deposited. To that I might perchance add my own particular definition of the words, which perhaps has no bearing on the matter, that to my mind dumping is the selling of some article at a value below its economic cost. This brings me to a consideration of the conditions prevailing in Russia at the present time, which have led to this unprecedented state of affairs. Following the political and social revolution there came, as we all know, a period of economic and industrial stagnation—the usual stagnation which follows in the wake of all revolutions—which, of course, brought great hardship to the people concerned. Then in 1928 came the adoption of the five years plan, which appears to be a gigantic scheme for resuscitating Russian production and re-establishing her economic position on the basis of dragooned labour. This, as applied to agriculture, has produced a policy which divides the agricultural community into four general groups, the collective farms, the uncollectivised peasants, the State farms and the kulaki or well-to-do peasant group.

It has been shown by experiments that the farms in small units, what we would call smallholdings, produce relatively less for the market than the farms in large units. In consequence it is proposed largely to increase the State farms at an early date. These State farms are largely mechanised farms, run by gangs of workmen who are moved from place to place as necessity demands, and they are productive of large quantities of grain at a minimum operative cost. But even so it would appear from the reports that we receive from time to time that their finance is in a precarious condition, and that in order to obtain the necessary capital to finance the five years plan the Russians are concentrating upon their export trade, particularly in agriculture, oil, timber and other raw materials, at sacrificed prices. There may, of course, be a twofold reason for this policy, for it has been stated that the five years plan, with its rapid industrialisation and complete collectivism of agriculture, and the elimination of all capitalist elements in the country, has been adopted to obtain the ultimate ideal of Communism in Russia, and that the sacrifice of price at which the grain is being offered may be for the purpose of demoralising prices throughout the world and so creating disorder and discontent, through which the Russians hope to bring about the world revolution.

I have only one more word to say in regard to the State farms, and that is as to their production or estimated production in the future. In 1929 there were 1,000,000 acres under cultivation on the State farms. In the present year, 1930–31, it is estimated that there are no fewer than 2,500,000 acres included in the State farms, and by the end of the five years plan in 1934 it is believed that there will be the huge acreage of 75,000,000 acres under State control. That is twice the acreage of the whole of the United Kingdom and the North of Ireland. These farms, as far as we can learn from the reports which we received—this is a point that I hope hon. Members will take into account—are being developed by cajoled, coerced and conscripted labour, on what is merely a subsistence allowance and under what can be described as a tyrannical and despotic administration. According to Professor Hincklers their weekly wage, on the basis of the purchasing power of the rouble, which is estimated at between two and a-half and seven pence, worked out at the higher figure is only 11s. a week. Certain it is that Russian labour, as M. Poincaré has said, amounts to something like slavery.

If the British Government have any consideration for the standard of life of the British workman, including the agricultural labourer, they must take steps to ensure the home market for the produce of his hands. As we all know, cheapness is not everything. In fact it is nothing without the money or the credit to pay for what we need. Various ways present themselves for dealing with this problem. The licensing system has been adopted by France. America has placed what is in the nature of an embargo against the dumping of Russian cereals and Russian produce in her market. It has been suggested that a scientifically imposed tariff might help to conserve the home markets against the menace of foreign dumping, from whatever country it comes, and perhaps as an alternative it might be suggested to the Governments of the world that they should accept dumped Russian grain and hold it against the payment of Russia's pre-War debts. However, I feel that these details can be very well left to the Government of the day, for has not the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party proclaimed that our system cannot uphold the monster of dumping, and has not the Prime Minister himself declared that farming must be made to pay? Moreover has not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that as soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known the Government will undertake whatever practical steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economic foundation? If this is not done and done in the very near future, I feel sure that the Government, like humpty-dumpty, will have to look forward to a very great fall, brought about by the electorate demanding an ail-British policy for an all-British people.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to second the Motion.

I wish to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me this opportunity. We are touching upon a subject which for importance to the British nation out-rivals almost any subject that we have discussed for a very long time. When I return at the week-end to the arable district which I represent and have to tell the people that the British Government is content to let this dumping of Russian produce continue, is content to let the workers and the farmers in the arable districts be ruined by it, and is content at the same time to tell these arable workers that the Government will subsidise grand opera, I can only say that I speak with a feeling of disgust. I visited my district one day recently and a working man came to me and said, "Is it true, Sir, that what this Government is going to do for us is to subsidise grand opera, a thing I have never seen Are they to subsidise Muscovite musicians to come and play and sing in grand opera which I will never see? Is some prima donna, trained on caviare d'Astrakan, to delight the arable workers and farmers in the depressed country districts from which so many of us come?" Is that to be the answer that we have to take? Is that to be the treatment by the Government of this country, which should exhibit power and domination in face of such competition? Is that to be the answer that we have to take into the most depressed and ruined parts of the country?

Mr. PERRY

The Mover of the Resolution gave us a definition from the dictionary of the word "dumping." Would the Seconder of the Resolution give us a definition of the word "foreign"? So far we have heard of nothing but Russia. A few months ago it was Germany and France.

Mr. BUTLER

I am referring to the dumping of foreign cereals in this country, as the experts in the corn trade tell us it is going on now. The chief dumper of cereals on this market is the Russian Government. In the past there have been cases of the dumping of German subsidised wheat, and the dumping of French wheat and flour, but we on this side content ourselves by restricting ourselves to the facts, and the facts at the moment are that it is the Russian Government which is dumping upon this country at the present time. I do not intend to be led away by any form of quibbling as to the definition of the word "dumping." I am quite willing to accept the definition of my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not propose to go into the realm of political economy to prove anything in that respect. The facts before us are so extremely serious that we shall not tolerate any begging of the question; nor do we intend to accept any form of quibbling upon the question that the Russian exports are now showing a slight diminution, as was reported in the papers yesterday from Constanza. It is because of this dumping that the price of cereals has been so seriously reduced during the last few months. We do not intend to accept any quibbling on the question whether this Russian grain does or does not harm the British farmer. I am convinced that such an argument will be brought up in the course of the debate, but it is not a subject on which we need waste our time. I notice that a speaker said at the Friends, House, at Euston, 14th October, that it was a reason why we should have no fear.

Since 7th August the amount of dumped Russian produce, in the shape of wheat, has increased front 49,000 quarters to nearly 944,000 quarters, an increase of nearly 900,000 quarters. The price of Liverpool options on December futures far 7th August was 35s. 6d. a quarter, or approximately 7s. 4½d. a cental. The price to-day is in the neighbourhood of 25s. One can see that there has been a remarkable rise in the amount of the Russian imports with, at the same time, a steadily falling price, taking the basis of Liverpool options on December futures. I wish to work out these figures a little more closely in order to show how the fall in price has tallied with the incidence of Russian dumping. On 21st August, two weeks after the first date which I gave, the amount of dumping had risen to 263,000 quarters per week, and the price has fallen to 34s. 9d. A month later, on 18th September, the amount of corn dumped had risen to 411,000 quarters per week and the price had sunk to 31s. 7d. The two tables go absolutely together—the fall in price and the rise in the quantity of cereals dumped. On 16th October the amount of cereals dumped had increased to 605,000 quarters, and the price had sunk to 26s. 9d. On 13th November, the date to which I finally referred, the amount had increased to 944,000 quarters and the price had sunk to 25s. 4d. I think those figures are a sufficient answer to any of the points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite upon this question. They show that the incidence of the dumping of Russian wheat has a direct bearing on the reduction of price. There is one point relating to the question of losses. If we consult Mr. George Broomhall's table of corn prices since the year 1800, we find that the present is the worst time since the year 1894. In that year the lowest point was reached in corn figures since those figures were first recorded in the "Corn Trade News." We are to-day in the worst trough of depression in the corn trade which we have known in this country since these matters were first analysed.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN

Or anywhere else.

Mr. BUTLER

I am glad that I have the approval of the right hon. Gentleman who, I hope, will bear out the words of wisdom of his chief the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) by supporting this Resolution. We are at this moment in the worst position to be found in the recorded history of the corn trade and of our arable districts, and the subject is one of immense importance to this House. Upon the table to which I have just referred there are certain indications of the reasons why corn was so low in 1894. Those reasons were, first, a financial crisis; second, a superabundance of supplies; third, Argentine exports; and, fourth, the subject which we are considering now, namely, large Russian supplies. It is a remarkable coincidence that at the present time the same economic phenomenon is responsible for the trough in which we find ourselves, as that which was responsible for the previous depression and just as, following upon that depression, there was an extraordinary economic phenomenon in the attempt to corner the corn market, by Leiter, so we have before us now an economic phenomenon of an even more remarkable kind. In the case of Leiter it was a buying corner, but what we are confronted with now is the greatest organised selling corner that the world has ever seen. Therefore, it is a subject which demands the careful and close scrutiny of this House, and it is necessary that we should impress upon the Government, as we are attempting to do by this Resolution, the extreme urgency of the situation. If the Government are to sit upon the Treasury Bench and maintain the complacent attitude which they have so far adopted towards the cereal producing districts of this country, then we ought to attack them with all the power at our command and force them to take action with the help of our hon. Friends on this side below the Gangway to deal with this vital matter.

I have, I think, proved that the incidence of Russian competition and the reduction in the price of cereals in this country go together, and that now, as in 1894, a great economic phenomenon has to be faced. I wish to give one further fact to stress the extent of the losses involved. It is sometimes said that before the War Russia was a great importer, and that this phenomenon is only getting back to what Russia did before the War. I have analysed the figures of the Russian imports of wheat for 1903 and 1913. The average weekly figure in 1903 was 300,000 quarters. The figures for 1913 show that in the 27th week of the corn importing season there were in this country 8,000,000 quarters of Russian wheat already imported, which works out at between 300,000 and 400,000 quarters of Russian imports in each week of the "trooping season" in the corn trade—if I may use that expression—in 1913, On 13th November of this year we had 945,000 quarters of Russian wheat shipped to this country. That shows that the argument that. Russia is simply getting back to the pre-War position in this matter does not hold water. I will not detain the House by going into the figures in regard to barley, but they are equally dramatic. Barley prices have been affected not only by Russian shipments, but by shipments from Braila and other Danubian ports. The Danubian imports came in May and the Russian imports in August, and I could give another table equivalent to that which I have already given, to show the effect upon the price of barley. The price of English barley came down 6s. in this country since January, and the, price of Canadian barley came down 12s. 9d. Since January, the fall being largely due to the competition from Russia and from the Danubian ports.

Having given these facts and figures I would like to use some rather more dramatic illustrations to show the seriousness of the position. The first is one which I am sure would appeal to the Prime Minister if he were present, and incidentally it enables me to reply to the question which has been brought up as to what is foreign dumping. It was reported on 3rd November that the good ship "Orion" had arrived at Lossiemouth, the Prime Minister's own port, with 600 tons of Danish barley for the Speyside distilleries. If I had the honour of being the Prime Minister of this country I imagine that, looking out upon the waters, I should have a certain sense of distress in seeing quantities of barley landed in our ports—not only for a purpose which would offend his tendencies towards prohibition, namely, that of making whisky, but also for the purpose of ruining the arable farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who brought it in?"] Another graphic illustration is to be found in the fact that it was reported from Elgin on 5th November that the Aberdeen, Banffshire and Kincardineshire farmers had decided to take drastic measures to stop the dumping of foreign oats. This action by farmers introduces another question on which I have not yet touched, namely, the possibility of disease being brought in by dumped oats which are made into flour afterwards sold as Scottish flour. These oats may contain the germ of anthrax. A circular issued by this branch of the Farmers' Union has had 22 replies out of 47 in which farmers and merchants say that they are not going to handle the stuff. That is another dramatic illustration of the effects of dumping at the present time.

The third illustration is one which enables me to conjure up the history, of this country. In the "Corn Trade News" of yesterday I find that no fewer than seven steamers are awaiting orders at Falmouth, each of which carries approximately 35,000 quarters of Russian corn. It is a dramatic thought that from the ports of Nicolaief, Novorossisk and Odessa there are at the present moment good ships setting forth, many of them I regret to say British ships, bringing to this country the Russian corn which is doing us so much harm. What is the attitude of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they see this new Armada coming to our shores? It is not an Armada such as we had in earlier days of our history when we went out to singe the King of Spain's beard. It is an Armada which is coming here to ruin our farmers. Do the Government take the attitude of those who in past days played bowls and then went out and defeated the Armada? No, I would suggest that their attitude is rather one of playing skittles with all those institutions and all those economic organs which have made this country what it is. But I ask them to think of that Armada waiting for its orders from a foreign Power, domiciled in our capital, as to which port in this country they are to land their cargoes at, to do harm to our farmers and workers. I call upon the Government to regard this as a matter of urgency and to take immediate steps to deal with it.

Finally, I wish to deal with the supreme impotence of the present Government, their stark staring sterility in face of this very serious situation. I maintain that they ought to have dealt in a much more up-to-date and realistic way with the position of this country as regards anti-dumping legislation. They may try to get away with it on the ground that international action is required, but I propose to quote an economist—which I have not yet done—namely Professor Jacob Viner who wrote a Memorandum on dumping for the League of Nations in 1926. He said: Such precedents as there are for international action with respect to dumping do not appreciably strengthen the belief in the feasibility of developing methods of the control of the dumping problem other than by independent municipal legislation. Those are the words of probably the greatest authority on the economics of dumping. He tells us that we must take national action to put an end to this economic phenomenon. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Govern- ment tells us that this is a matter which must be dealt with by international action—possibly with the same failure as attended the tariff truce—he cannot get away with it, on that ground. We urge him to tell the House that he proposes to take municipal, that is national action, such as we propose in the party to which I belong, to deal with this subject at the earliest possible moment. If we compare our methods with those of the Dominions, we shall see that the Dominions adopted measures to deal with dumping before the War, as early as 1905, by legislation, and in Australia, Canada, and South Africa measures have been taken since the War to deal with this problem. We are almost the only country to-day which is content to say that it does not regard the flooding of its market with foreign goods as dumping unless those goods are sold abroad at under the cost of production. That is the weakest definition of dumping which has been given by any nation, and I do not think it is one to which we as a nation should adhere. Dumping is one of the cruellest of economic weapons. I should like to quote the opinion of Czechoslovakia as to social dumping. The phrase used in Czechoslovakia is: If a foreign industry is bringing undue competition to bear on home production owing to the introduction of longer hours of labour or other less favourable social conditions of labour. In those cases they have certain provisions to deal with dumping in an immediate way, as the French Government have done, by licence. We ask for a reply from the Government on this matter, and we ask for a reply which shall be in accordance with the historical traditions for which this nation is famous, and not in accordance with some of those economic traditions for which the present Government are famous. The chief economic tradition for which this Government are famous is that they are willing to allow our own workers and farmers to be ruined in order to let a great country adopt an entirely new and unlawful method against this country simply because it happens to object to our social and economic system.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I regret that there are not more Members present, but I have listened with interest to the attractive speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Motion. I am sorry to disappoint those hon. Members above the Gangway who looked for some help in this matter from these benches. First of all, let me say a word or two about the question of Russia. I remember very well a King's Speech being read in this House from your Chair, Sir, in 1920, and that King's Speech was one of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of this party, who is here this afternoon, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party were the actual framers. They took, I thought at the time, and I still think, a most sensible view with regard to Russia. I quote the words: In order, however, to assure the full blessings of peace and prosperity to Europe, it is essential that not only peace but normal conditions of economic life should be restored in Eastern Europe and in Russia. So long as these vast regions withhold their full contribution to the stock of commodities available for general consumption, the cost of living can hardly be reduced nor general prosperity restored to the world. Do any hon. Members think that by some occult method associated directly with tariffs they are going to produce a condition in Russia which w ill restore her to that position which everybody admits is vital to the development of the economic life of the world? Further, if we, a great trading nation, a nation of shopkeepers, as Napoleon described us, are to choose and to select from among our customers those nations to whose economic life we can give an unmitigated blessing, our trading opportunities will be very few indeed. Everybody knows that after the French Revolution, when excesses internally were equal to and even exceeded those in Russia, this country traded with France at every possible opportunity, and there was scarcely an hon. Member of this House in those days who raised a protest against it. However, I will leave that point, because I do not think it is seriously pressed to-day, although it finds a place in the more purple passages of speeches with regard to Russia.

With regard to the question of wheat, there is no Member on this Bench who does not most heartily subscribe to the view that the arable farmer is indeed very hard hit. Everybody admits that. While other parts of trade and industry are struggling through great difficulties, they are by far the worst hit of all, and I say at once that if it were possible for any of us to suggest a remedy which would really help them and the whole community at the same time, we should most gladly seize and develop it and do all that we could to assist them, but our difficulty is that we distrust profoundly the remedies suggested, and we look to other means, which it is not open to me now to discuss, for developing the assistance which that branch of industry so urgently needs. I must make this point, however, that wheat is only 4 per cent. of our agricultural products, and last year the value of the product of wheat in this country was £10,000,000, but the value of the product of poultry farming was £20,000,000. I just mention those figures to get them in the right perspective when we are looking at the troubles with which the arable farmer is confronted to-day. Whatever our sympathies may be—and they are deep and sincere—we have to look at the welfare of the community as a whole.

I was very interested in the speeches which have been delivered, but I quite failed to follow most of the statistics that were given to us. I do not know whether it was the mover or the seconder of the Motion who said that the greatest dumper of cereals into this country was Russia. I take the very months which he quoted, and if he does me the honour of listening to me, he will see what the actual facts are. At the end of the month of October we had received into this country, in response to orders that were sent to Russia for it—[An HON. MEMBER: "By whom?"]—by grain traders—6,700,000 quarters, and the Argentine "dumped"—I will use that word—here 13,651,000 quarters. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what price?"] I will give the price in a moment, and I am not at all afraid of that comparison. The United States "dumped" here 18,000,000 quarters, Australia 10,000,000 quarters, and Canada 21,000,000 quarters. I am leaving out the odd figures.

Which is the greatest dumper? Which is the country that responded most largely to orders which were sent to it? Obviously, it was Canada. I make this assertion, and I think I am right when I say it in regard to Canada, that the wheat which is sent here from Canada to-day is delivered here, "dumped," below the cost of production. The real trouble, of course, is—though I do not know why it should be reckoned as a trouble that so much food should be in the world at so cheap a price—that owing to the bounty of Providence and the development of machinery, there has been and is now a surplus amount of wheat in the world such as there has never been before, and it follows that consumers of wheat in this country are getting it at a lower price almost than ever before. I think it was the Mover of the Motion who quoted the price of 6s. 9d. per cwt. from Russia, and I would like to compare that price with some others. In the week ended 12th November American hard winter wheat was delivered here at 6s. 10d. per cwt., and Manitoba No. 2 was delivered in London at 6s. 10d. I am quoting from the official list of comparative prices, which I have obtained from official sources. Surely the point goes, on the question of price. Russia is delivering her wheat to-day, in view of its rather inferior quality, at the average market price of the day.

Let me take this extraordinary objection to trading with Russia. I have often heard the point taken, though not perhaps to-day, that £2,500,000 of good British money has been lent to Russia. What are the facts in regard to that matter? There was established under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, in 1920, an Export Credits Committee, which was staffed by first-class business men in the City of London, who thoroughly understood their job. I do not know whether there have been one or two changes since this Government came into office, but it is now in all respects substantially the same Committee. What have they been doing? They have been giving credits to British exporters, to send to Russia, in response to orders from Russia, such goods as this country can supply and as the Russian customer wants.

That credit amounts to about £2,500,000, and I noticed that within the last week or two a very large order, amounting to £600,000, had been placed for British machine tools—[interruption.] I do not know precisely how they are paid for, but I should hope that there is nobody in this House who would not agree that there is only one way of paying for goods or services which go out from this country, and that that is by goods or services which come into this country. There is no other way of doing it. Russia cannot send us back manufactured goods. What has she sent back to us? The things which she has and which we want. She has been sending back to us timber. She is going to pay for the £600,000 worth of orders for British-made goods by wheat, by timber, by oil, by tallow, and by other products. [interruption.] I want to be paid for the goods I send, and I will take whatever Russia sends.

5.0 p.m.

I will deal, in conclusion, with the question of dumping again. I was amazed at the statement which was made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion. He had been spending hours in the Library finding out from a dictionary what was the meaning of the word "dumping," and he had come to the conclusion that dumping meant to dump, that is to say, planked down here in large masses. These goods come into the country because somebody here wants them, and that is the only way in which this operation can be dealt with. There was another interesting speaker, going back to the year 1921, when there was a debate which, in point of interest and clarity of statement, has not often been exceeded in the history of this House. I need not say that in clarity of statement of difficult questions, one of the greatest masters was our right hon. Friend the late Lord Oxford. In the course of that debate, he was pressed to say what he mean by dumping, and I will quote fully what he said, for the actual English of it is quite worth listening to:

Dumping! What is dumping? …. What does it mean in any intelligent sense? It means the deliberate and organised attempt of foreign producers, or, as is much more common, a combination of foreign producers, flourishing as they do under the facilities of rings and trusts which protective tariffs always afford, to flood our markets, regardless of price, with goods which will undermine and, as they hope, destroy some particular branch of British industry. I am an old hand in these matters, and I have argued this question of dumping before many hon. Members now present were here, and I have always said that Free Trade is not a gospel of fiscal quietism or quakerism. There is nothing in the Free Trade creed or practice which obliges any Free Trader to submit to a process of that kind. Even when it is proved, and it must be proved, first of all, then the next thing to do is to make yourself quite certain that the methods you are going to take to counteract it are not likely to do more injury than would be the case if you allowed it to exist. These are the two conditions upon which Free Traders are quite prepared to deal with dumping."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1921; col. 1727, Vol. 141.] That, though in a slightly more classic form, is what my right hon. Friend said the other day. That is the Liberal case with regard to dumping. Since that day until this, no case has been proved. That is our case, and the remedy of hon. Members above the Gangway is to put up tariffs. You cannot stop dumping by tariffs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Prohibition!"] Prove your case, and I will be prepared to prohibit, but let us have your case. Whether my statement is agreed with or disagreed with, I have, at any rate, made it clear.

Mr. PERRY

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite who gave way when I asked a question. There was no intention on my part to quibble on this question of dumping, but I was disappointed that the two hon. Members who put forward this Motion, dealt with dumping from foreign countries as applied to one country only, namely, Russia.

Mr. BUTLER

Other countries were mentioned as well.

Mr. PERRY

Not up to the time of my interruption. I do not want to deal with this question merely from the point of view of imports from a particular country. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite who will speak later to explain exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion meant when he quoted a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), and spoke about the Conservative party's policy of a guaranteed price for wheat. I have heard that policy mentioned many times, and I have waited to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us exactly how that guaranteed price is to be obtained, and where it is to come from. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley mentioned in a speech yesterday a watertight quota system, and we were given to understand that the Conservative party have now drawn up a complete system under which a quota of British wheat will be taken by British mills. I am not attempting to challenge that, but I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us, when they speak of Socialism as a policy of dressing us all alike and keeping in step, what will be the policy of a Tory Government which will tell the people of this country exactly what kind of bread they are to eat?

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

Empire bread.

Mr. PERRY

You may apply that doctrine if you like, but the co-operative movement will never be behind in supporting a Government in development in that direction. I want to deal with the point in regard to co-operative societies and wheat from Russia. No trading organisation in this country is more loyal to the development of Empire trade than the co-operative movement. From 1924 to 1929 this movement financed the West Australian Wheat Pool to the extent of over £14,500,000. It financed the South Australian Wheat Pool to the extent of over £3,250,000. It, has advanced to the Australian Warehousing Association over £324,000 already, and in 1929 it purchased produce to the amount of over £10,250,000 from the New Zealand Produce Association. I can, therefore, claim with some evidence that the co-operative movement is playing its part in developing trade within the Empire, and doing also what it can to help home agriculture.

It is difficult to get a copy of the weekly notes for speakers issued by the Conservative party, and I am very grateful to them for letting me have a copy. In the issue of 6th September, they make an attack on the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which has been re-echoed from Conservative platforms in the country, and has been referred to in this House, with regard to the co-operative movement and the purchase of Russian wheat. What is the complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite Do they claim that when Russian wheat or Canadian wheat or Argentine wheat comes to this country in large quantities, the co-operative movement is to stand aside and not take fair advantage of the market, but allow those who support private enterprise to have the advantage over the co-operative movement? During the period that has been referred to, the purchases of the co-operative movement were to the extent of only 14 per cent. of the importation. Is the complaint that by taking 14 per cent. of that importation of Russian wheat, the movement allocated only 86 per cent. to upholders of private enterprise, and took some portion of their profit? One result of that policy has been that the co-operative movement led the way in a further reduction in the price of bread, and it has been followed only in the last few days by private enterprise.

This question of the fall in commodity prices, particularly in regard to wheat, has not arisen simply within the last few weeks. It is not fair to British agriculture to say that only 4 per cent. of the agricultural produce of this country is wheat. It is true in a sense, but the figures are not quoted in a way that is fair to British agriculture. The production of wheat in this country has been reduced so low as 4 per cent. through the continued agricultural depression of the last few years, and, when we talk of the production of wheat being only 4 per cent. of our agricultural produce, this fact should be borne in mind. In 1929, I was in touch with a group of Northamptonshire farmers who were complaining of the dumping of foreign cereals. Russia was not mentioned at that time. At one time it was Germany, and another time France, but every hon. Member opposite knows that during the last two or three years Canadian wheat has done more to depress the price in this country than the wheat of any other country. Being connected with one of the largest wheat importing organisations in this country, I want to say this. When our buyer goes to interview the representative of the Canadian Wheat Pool, he does not talk about the British Empire; he talks about wheat. It is only because of the abnormal conditions now prevailing, and the fact that Canada has a surplus of practically two full season's crops, that the price has been so considerably reduced.

We in the co-operative movement stand for cheap food for the consumer. I am not ashamed to declare that, but we have never claimed that that cheap food should be obtained at the expense of the producer. I want my agricultural friends to help me in this. When the average world price of wheat was 42s., I was in touch with agricultural interests in Northamptonshire, who said that their cost of production was 56s. a quarter. I think that may have been on the high side, but let us take it at 52s. I put this simple question to my hon. Friend opposite, using the figures for purposes of illustration only: If the world price of wheat is 42s. per quarter and the cost of production of wheat in this country is 52s. per quarter, when my hon. Friends talk about a guaranteed price for homegrown wheat who is going to find the difference of 10s. per quarter? I should be very glad if we could have some light on that matter during this debate. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said in a speech last week. I was brought up in Lancashire, brought up under the Free Trade system. Free Trade was regarded as vital to the cotton industry, and I believe it is the best fiscal system for this country. We should not have come so well through the difficult times through which we have been passing if we had been hidebound by a tariff system.

But that does not mean that I come here to-night defending the dumping, if you may call it so, of the produce or goods of a foreign country where they are made under conditions which I have opposed to the utmost of my strength in this country. I hope my hon. Friend opposite will not charge me and others on this side with quibbling, but I say that we ought not to have had that dramatic illustration about the armada at Falmouth. The hon. Member must remember when he talks about those British ships that it was British labour that built them, and it may be that it is British labour that is manning them, and if those ships were not employed there might be more unemployment. Anxious as we are to deal with this evil, we say that at this stage it is idle to take the step suggested by this Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I shall do whet I can to answer one or two of the questions which have been addressed to this side of the House by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry). He asked, first, how it was intended to bridge the gap between the world price for wheat and the guaranteed price for home-grown wheat. When the Conservative party is again in office one of the first things it is going to do is to put an emergency tariff on manufactured goods coming into this country. That will be a considerable new source of revenue, and from that money it will be possible to find the sum required to bridge the gap. I was very much surprised, in fact, rather alarmed, to note the great anxiety with which the hon. Member for Kettering defended the position of the co-operative societies.

Mr. PERRY

No anxiety.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I thought a considerable note of anxiety ran through the whole of the hon. Member's speech. So anxious was he to defend the position of the co-operative societies that he neglected altogether the terms of the Motion. Am I wrong in making the statement that the Co-operative Society is in some respects a joint enterprise with the Russo-British Grain Import Company, Limited?

Mr. PERRY

Yes, undoubtedly it is, and has been for many years, in common with one of the largest banks in this country and one of the largest shipping companies.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I think the admission of the hon. Member is very interesting in view of his speech, and we know now why he was at such pains to explain and exonerate the position of the co-operative societies. Turning to the Motion itself, we have heard a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman on the benches below the Gangway about the definition of dumping. In discussing dumping we must be quite clear that there are many different kinds of dumping. I submit that commodities would fall under the definition of dumping if they are exported from any country where they are produced under any of the following conditions: (1) Under conditions of standard-of-living or of level-of-wages which are far below those obtaining in the country of importation; (2) where the commodities are produced under conditions of slave or of forced labour; (3) where the exporting country protects its home production by tariffs and then exports the surplus at prices lower than those obtaining in its own home market; (4) where the exporting company subsidises its exports by export bounties or any similar form of subsidy; (5) political dumping, a new form of dumping and the most dangerous dumping of all. I am not going to elaborate this last aspect of dumping, because I think it has been carefully and fully explained both by the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion, but it is a form of dumping and by far the most dangerous of all. When commodities come from any of these countries where the conditions I have just described prevail into a country where similar commodities are produced, then, I say, they are dumped commodities.

The hon. Member for Kettering complained that Russia had been the only country mentioned in connection with dumping. We all know perfectly well that it is not the only country which would come within the definition I have just given to the House. Barley comes from North Africa and from Asia Minor which has been grown under conditions which would not be tolerated in this country. In fact, a great deal of the malting barley which competes so severely with the barley grown in this country is produced under conditions which would not be tolerated here. We have instances of cereals, though perhaps it is truer of potatoes, coming from Algeria which are undoubtedly grown under conditions of convict labour. If we come to instances of countries exporting their surplus, though protecting themselves against imports from other countries, we find Germany doing that, and we find France damaging our wheat growers and our millers very severely by exports of flour under expert bounties. We get several instances of that and if the hon. Member for Kettering will read the terms of the Motion he will see that it is by no means confined to Russia; in fact, I do not think Russia is mentioned in the Motion.

Almost every civilised country in the world is taking steps to prevent dumping from other countries. I have here a reply given by the Secretary of the Department for Overseas Trade in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler). He said: By a decree issued on 3rd October the importation into France of cereals (and certain other goods) originating in or coming from the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics is made dependent on the grant of a licence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1930; col. 921, Vol. 245.] That shows that France is taking steps to protect herself. On the same day the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) gave a list of countries which have now put the quota system, or something akin to it, into practice. It may surprise the House to hear the number of countries which have now adopted some system of that sort. They are Germany, Portugal and Latvia, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. They are all taking steps to protect themselves against dumping, and a large number of them are using the quota because they find it to be the most satisfactory automatic anti-dumping machine available.

As all these countries have taken steps to prevent dumping it makes the situation infinitely worse far us. Were the dumped products of Russia or any other country being distributed in comparatively small parcels over all the countries of Europe the damage done would probably not be so great, but when nearly all the countries have taken steps to prevent dumping the whole of the dumped cereals come here, the only country foolish enough to protect its labour while not protecting the products of its labour. From a purely business point of view it may be attractive, as it is to the Cooperative Wholesale Society, to buy this dumped stuff, but let there be no misunderstanding about this: a continued course of dumping such as that from which we are now suffering definitely means ruin to our agriculture.

Sometimes it is argued that the effect of dumping on prices is very small. The House will probably remember the effect of the dumping of German wheat. I will not even call it dumping if that word is offensive to hon. Members opposite. I refer to the German what which arrived in this country in harvest time in 1928 and 1929. Cargoes of German wheat were landed at East Anglian ports at the beginning of September, just when the Eastern Counties farmers were getting in their wheat crop and beginning to thresh it and offer it on the market. What happened? The first cargo was offered at just a little less than the then ruling price of English wheat in East Anglian markets. Next week, of course, English wheat had to come down, and come down it did. The following week the German wheat was offered at about 2s. a quarter less than the price of the English wheat the week before; and so the thing went on. Just when the English farmer, who had been waiting nearly 12 months to get a return on his crop was ready to market his wheat he found himself confronted by these importations of German wheat, which depressed prices week by week.

Many official excuses have been given in the House. It has been said that the quantity imported is almost negligible as compared with the total importation of wheat, and that is perfectly true. There was not a very large importation of German wheat, but it had an enormous effect on prices. Another official answer given so often with great satisfaction is "After all, the import this year is less than it was last year." Of course, that means nothing at all. Anyone who has been in business knows well that when the supply approximates to the demand there is reasonable stability of prices. When a small deficiency arises, then you get a rise in price out of all proportion to the actual deficiency in the supply. Any business man will tell you that when supply rises above the balancing or saturation point then there is a fall in price out of all proportion to the rise in supply. Why dumping is so serious in this country is because our supplies of agricultural products, and certainly cereals, are nearly always at saturation point. It stands to reason that the dumping of cereals must have a. greater effect in this country than in any other country. Another reason is that we are the most popular market, and foreigners always like to sell their goods here because they know that we are honest people, and that they will get paid for their goods. In this country we have a very high standard of commercial integrity, and that is why so many unsold cargoes, which otherwise might have gone to some other country, are directed to this country.

The question we have to settle here and now is, are we going to maintain the traditional Cobdenite theory, as advanced in this debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). I think the right hon. Gentleman must have dug out a speech he made about a quarter of a century ago. The question I ask is: Are we prepared to be content always to buy in the cheapest market and comfort ourselves with the idea of selling in the dearest market?

It is not a question now of selling in the dearest market, because if foreign countries continue to dump their goods here, we shall have no market at all, and that is the position we are in to-day. Why did Cobden always insist upon cheap food? Free Traders advanced only one reason for that, and it was that it would give this country cheap labour. It is amazing to me that the Socialist party, which calls itself the Labour party, should subscribe to the theory of cheap food, because the only principle upon which it rests is that it is the necessary corollary of cheap labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will turn up the speeches which were made in Cobden's time, they will find that their one principal cry was for cheap food. It is clear that there is no reason why we should not be able to secure a far higher standard of living in this country even if food did cost a little more. We have only to look to the United States for an example, because there you will find not only that the cost of living is higher, but that the standard of living and the standard of wages are infinitely higher than in this country.

Mr. HAYDOCK

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman see the "Daily Express" last Monday, in which there was a photograph showing people who were offering to work for one week for one dollar?

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

I did not have an opportunity of seeing the "Daily Express" on that day, but what the hon. Member has quoted would not affect my argument in the least. It is undeniable that in the United States there is a higher standard of living and higher wages, although food cost a little more than it does in this country. That is my point. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the present position. The President of the Board of Trade is, we understand, about to ratify the Tariff Truce Convention. Do hon. Members opposite realise all the implications of that Convention, and do they really wish the hands of this country to be tied so that when the masses of the working classes of this country produce goods or foods they will find the market gone for the products of their labour, with the result that they will be condemned to remain unemployed? That is the necessary consequence of the action taken by the President of the Board of Trade, and, in these circumstances, I ask, should the right hon. Gentleman be permitted to go to Geneva to ratify the Tariff Truce Convention?

I will consider for a few moments the views of political parties on this question. The Conservative party have declared their policy in unequivocal terms. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Paddington?"] The Conservative party have declared their intention to stop dumping at the very earlist moment, and therefore we know where they stand in relation to dumping. I admit that there is some difficulty when we come to consider the position of the Liberal party. When we were discussing the other day the importation of foreign fruits we had a very important declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvan Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who said that he was going to do all sorts of fine things, and he said, referring to the dumping of fruit: I do not consider, as I have said before here, that Free Trade is bound to carry that monster on its back."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1930, cols. 481–2, Vol. 245.] Seven days and seven nights have passed since then, and this afternoon we are discussing almost the same problem as applied to cereals, and we find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall trying to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not mean what he said last week, and does not know what he means to say this week.

Mr. FRANK OWEN

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said exactly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said last week, that where dumping was proved to exist, he was prepared to stop it.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE

The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether dumping had been proved to exist or not. I would like to know if the Liberal party believe that this country is not suffering from the dumping of cereals. I would like to ask what goods the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall thinks are being dumped in this country. It is perfectly clear that the Liberal party has changed its view one way or the other since this day last week. On these benches we can well afford to leave the Liberal party out of consideration altogether because the whole Conservative party is united with regard to the policy of dumping, and we intend to put a stop to it at the earliest possible moment. If on this Motion the Members of the Socialist party in this House took part in a secret ballot, I am quite convinced that there would be a majority of the Members who would vote for this Motion. I believe that there is an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of stopping dumping in every form in order to protect British labour.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR

I congratulate the Mover and Seconder upon the fair case which they have put in relation to this Motion, which evidently has been somewhat altered since it was drawn, because while its terms are clear and distinct in referring to all foreign cereals the type of speech to which we have just listened was largely concerned with a sustained tirade upon Russia and Russian trade. Having regard to the reference made by the hon. and gallant Member for Malden (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) at the close of his spirited speech, I should like to make one or two comments in relation to the aspect which I consider is the most dangerous in regard to this Motion. Speaking as a back bench Member, and as a new Member of this House, I am firmly convinced that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are far more interested in the welfare of agriculture in this country as a political asset to their own party than they are in endeavouring to get down to brass tacks in dealing with the welfare of the farmer. I have had four or five years' experience with regard to this question, and I am in a position to judge the results. By their deeds we shall know them.

Coming back to the point of this Motion, and to the challenge put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon. I note that three-fourths of this Motion consists of a condemnation, equal to a Vote of Censure, upon the Government, and just at the fag-end the Motion states that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs. There is nothing from which agriculture has suffered so much in the past as being made the plaything of party politics in this House. While I yield to no one in my loyalty to the principles of the party to which I am associated, I say quite definitely that my instructions from my constituency and my understanding are that I should fight for agricultural interests quite irrespective of party when national welfare and security are involved. The supporters of this Resolution have sandwiched in a Vote of Censure against the Government. It is a mistake for the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon to say that hon. Members on these benches would vote in a secret ballot in favour of condemning the Government on this question. Apart from that position, I think this House might do well to face the fundamental facts connected with this question. I will throw out a challenge to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and it is that if they will withdraw their Vote of Censure upon the Government, and confine the Motion to calling attention to the dumping of foreign cereals, and the necessity for introducing immediate measures to rectify that state of things, I am prepared to go into the Lobby with them. I leave it to hon. Members opposite to dissociate themselves from mere partisan politics, and come down to brass tacks by facing the position.

Let there be no misunderstanding. I have heard several definitions of dumping to-day, and I make no apology for offering another. I suggest that dumping is the policy of placing articles upon the market of another country at a price less than the cost of production in the country of origin. When we get to that stage, I agree with what has been said by Members of the Liberal party that we should take definite action to deal with dumping. The call is made from the opposite benches that we should take steps, as a Parliament and as a nation, to stop the incoming of foreign foodstuffs—because that is what it really means—to feed 45,000,000 people. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite, in face of the present position, think that they are doing a service to the home producer, but they are turning 44,000,000 of the population into enemies of the home producer by simply asking for a tax on food which they are bound not to accept. I want to deal with the wider aspects of this issue. I say quite definitely that I am prepared to vote against dumping, but I am not prepared to vote for food taxes, and the simple fact is that without food taxes you cannot keep foreign food from coming into this country, nor can you stop that which comes from the rest of the Empire. Our people must be fed, and the logical conclusion is that, this being the finest market in the world, we cannot stop such imports at the expense of the consumer to a sufficient extent to be of real value to the home producer.

I want to say a word now on the question of wheat growing in this country, to which reference has been made. I think that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches mentioned that only about 4 per cent. of our acreage in this country was wheat land. Speaking as a grower, I feel that the industry itself is more to be pitied than blamed for this situation. It has been the considered policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever since the War to let this position linger on, so that they can make a little more party capital and a little more division between political parties in this House, when we ought to have been bending our minds to a constructive policy along the lines of cereal production in this country, based upon a just economic price, instead of playing off the foreign and Russian bogey in order to frighten people in the villages and seek to give that appearance which is usually displayed at election times in the Bolshevik pictures to which they attach our names.

As regards the position of wheat, I want here and now respectfully to suggest that the criticism that, because it is only a small proportion of the main production in this country, therefore it is a negligible one, is a misguided criticism, calculated to do very real harm to arable agriculture in this country. I put it to the House in all seriousness that wheat is a far bigger factor than is represented just by the value of the cereal itself. It is of great value, and the nation that forgets the debt that it owes to wheat and to bread may well begin to prepare for its own burial in an economic sense. The value of wheat in relation to this problem resides in the fact that, old-fashioned though it may appear, the growing of wheat in the crop rotation, as is known to many farmers, cultivators and farm workers in agricultural Britain, is one of the finest regulating forces in relation to other crops. It will very often steady prices and steady production, and will level the growth of sugar beet, potatoes and other crops, where otherwise, if wheat were driven out of cultivation, they would be overweighted, and the result would be a slump in those branches of the industry accordingly.

I have more confidence than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have in our Front Bench in regard to completing their agricultural policy. I can understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends opposite, because we are making this an agricultural Session, and they must not be surprised if, before this Session ends, there are proposals for dealing with cereals along the lines of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last morning of last Session. Anyhow, I take it that they are beginning to have just a little faith, and that is worth something, because, if one were to judge from their attitude towards Labour's approach to agriculture, one might well be led to think that they were the only friends of agriculture in this country. They have been its biggest enemies, because they have not only failed during the years when they had the finest opportunity that any party ever had, but they have also discredited every other attempt made by every other party. The sooner we can drop this partisan challenge, and get down to that united attempt which some of us made earlier in the last Session to get a national policy, the safer and better it will be for the industry.

The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion made a remark to the effect that we were playing skittles with the whole position. I do not know why he should have said that now, because agriculture has been made a shuttlecock in this House for generations. Some of us are determined to protest against the humbug and cant which has been associated with this business. While we are going down into the very depths of poverty in East Anglia, and our people do not know which way to look, hon. Members come here with a proposal to stop dumping from Russia. We do not want to deal with the foreign side of the policy so much as to get down to a just economic price for our own home produce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course, my hon. Friends cheer. They visualise the taxation of everybody's food. But they know that they cannot get a mandate for that until two elections are over, and what is going to happen in the meantime to our starving industry? I submit that the policy of the present Government, although not yet declared—[Interruption]—is clearly indicated by the lines marked out by the party to which I am proud to belong. I hope that my hon. Friends will have the courage to support the policy of import boards and a stabilised price for home produce on lines that shall be economically just and fair. Some of us believe sincerely that it can be done along national lines, and it can be done in this present Parliament if hon. Gentlemen opposite will pool their brains with a little more sympathy in regard to co-operation and will endeavour to get this through.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

Is that the policy?

Mr. TAYLOR

My friends are laughing and making light of my humble reply—

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS

Can the hon. Gentleman say if that is the policy of the Government?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young)

Obviously, the hon. Member is not speaking on behalf of the Government, and I hope he will be allowed to proceed without these interruptions.

Mr. TAYLOR

I thought I indicated sufficiently plainly in my opening remarks that I was speaking as a backbench Member from an agricultural constituency. I am pursuing the line laid down by the Labour party in their party policy with regard to import boards, for which I have voted at five national conferences, and for which I shall vote when they are brought into being. We may not be able to secure this policy, but it will not be for want of trying, but because of opposition on the other side to anything which they do not themselves require for party advantage. I give that to my hon. Friends for what it is worth. Meanwhile, I want to emphasise the fact that I agree with all that has been said on the other side in regard to the seriousness of the situation in this country.

I believe that this Motion could have been carried if the partisan note of censuring His Majesty's Government had been kept out of it. We are halfway through an agricultural Session, and the Government are undoubtedly bending their minds to a constructive policy, which is not yet completed. [Interruption.] Hon Members may laugh, but a period of 15 months of Labour Government has done a thundering sight more than your poor efforts, and no amount of laughter can obliterate your neglect and your misleading promises. We are entitled to remind hon. Members of that, because their pharisaical tone of superiority will not answer their purpose unless it is accompanied by deeds. Labour is going to deliver these goods along lines that will give the cities a chance to pull through and reconstruct their industry with State assistance. The countryside, too, has reached a stage, under capitalism and private enterprise, when we can no longer look with any degree of security or confidence to those agencies alone. They have their part to play, but Labour believes, not in destroying, but in transforming, with the co-operation of the State, the relationships in the economic life of the nation. Therefore, I venture to think that our friends have done themselves and the industry a real disservice by making this matter one of mere partisan voting in the House this afternoon.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE

I think I am the first Member representing an entirely industrial constituency who has had the temerity to take part in this debate. I do not make any excuse for so doing, because it is quite clear that, if the very serious crisis in which the agricultural districts of this country find themselves to-day is to be remedied, it can only be done by the co-operation and with the consent of those who dwell in the towns. There is an increasing recognition on the part of those who represent industrial constituencies that our social and economic balance in this country has been disturbed, and that we must make every effort we possibly can to put it right. In my own Division I never cease to be reminded of the difficulties of the countryside. I interview large numbers of unemployed persons, who come to me for advice and to ask for help in one way or another, and I find that there are among them a very large number who started life upon the land. In that way I am constantly reminded of the necessity for co-operation between the cities and the countryside if we are to bring about a solution of this difficulty.

I am not particularly interested in the party pleasantries which are so exhilarating from time to time in this House. I never find that they lead to very much, or promote the business that has to be transacted here, but an hon. and gallant Member speaking from above the Gangway just now suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), in quoting a speech made in this House, I think in 1921, by the late Lord Oxford, was in some way trying to qualify the position of the Liberal party, or to sidetrack—I think that was the word that was used—a declaration in the debate last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I wish to say here and now that the quotation of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall was for the purpose of expanding the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the position laid down by Mr. Asquith, and, although I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was in the House at that time, he would have seen, if he had been present, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was then in the House, and accepted the formula of Mr. Asquith with regard to dumping. The position, therefore, for what it is worth, is precisely the same to-day as it was after the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his speech.

6.0 p.m.

I should like to come back to the speech of the Mover, which was in a very large measure devoted to the position of Russia. There has been a good deal of inquiry and discussion as to what is dumping, and other speakers have asked what it is. It would appear to be a sort of oscillating phenomenon. I am aware of a transaction that took place in October of this year, when a cargo of Canadian wheat was bought in London at 20s. a quarter, which must have represented a total loss to the Canadian producer, and if there is to be a definition of dumping in the discussion of this Motion, that will serve as well as another. But I should like to put the actual position of Russia in its proper perspective in the European and the world market. The crop year ending last year was a particularly good cereal year in Europe, and France produced a crop of wheat of 49,000,000 quarters. There was produced in France more wheat than in Canada. France naturally proceeded to sell her wheat where she could, and she sold some in this country, and it was very uncomfortable for producers in this country. This year the position has changed, and she has only produced 29,000,000 quarters. For the same reason the Italian crop is 5,000,000 quarters less, and the Rumanian crop also is less to the extent of about 2,000,000 quarters. There is a very substantial deficit this year in the European supply of wheat in comparison with last year. The largest estimate I have seen of the possible exports of wheat from Russia in this season is 14,000,000 quarters, which will simply be sold in Europe and will go some way, but not the whole way, to make up the deficit in the crops of France and the other countries I have mentioned.

It is, therefore, quite clear that, while Russia is a factor in the situation in Europe, it is by no means a decisive factor, and the influence of Russia in the markets of the world, when considered in its actual perspective, appears to be even less important. The total estimated import requirements in Europe and in the whole world amount to about 94,000,000 quarters. The estimated surplus for the British Empire, including India, is 69,000,000 quarters and for the other countries, including Russia, 84,000,000 quarters, or a total of 153,000,000 quarters. The position, therefore, is simply this, that at the end of this crop year, just at the time when the European and the Canadian and American crops are again ready to come into the market, there will be 59,000,000 quarters of wheat available, that is, seven months' supply, for all the countries that require to import wheat. To suggest that, by means of a tariff or an import Board or a quota, or by any other device which the ingenuity of Members can suggest, you can hold up the price of wheat for the English farmer is a ridiculous proposition. It is a task that might well have daunted the courage and tenacity of Sisyphus, and I am inclined to think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) and his friends, or any other set of men, attempt to raise the price of wheat by any artificial device, they will meet with the same fate that overcame Sisyphus. I was discussing this proposition the other day with an acquaintance who has the unusual qualification of being both a miller and a farmer. I think his opinion is tinged rather by his experience as a farmer than as a miller, and I do not associate myself with it, but he said there was only one way to settle the problem of wheat growing in this country, and that was to make it a penal offence to grow it. There is only one other way that I can see in which it can be done—I do not rise unless I am prepared to make some contribution to the debate—and that is to pay the farmer to grow it, and I am exceedingly doubtful whether that is a method that would commend itself to this country.

I said that the object of these remarks was to show that, while Russia was a factor in the situation this year, she is by no means the important factor that we are led to suppose by the fact that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, concentrated their observations upon Russia and her exports of wheat. The situation of the cereal crop in this country is very anxious, but whereas I say that Russia now is not a very important factor, it is upon Russia that I should be keeping my eye if I were a grower of cereals. The Mover gave us a picture of what is going on in Russia. Since the War the recovery of grain production in Russia has been very slow. Eleven years after the War the production was 10 per cent. below what it was in 1913. As exports had ceased, it would appear that the home grown supply ought to have been just enough to meet home requirements, but it was not so. In 1929 there was a crisis in grain growing in Russia, with the result that they had to import wheat from the Argentine. The crisis arose for this reason that, owing to the breakup of the great estates and the substitution of some 10,000,000 of smallholders, the amount of wheat produced had fallen off, and, what is more important, the amount produced for market and for exports had practically ceased. That has led to an experiment which, I think, must be described as the most remarkable experiment in agricultural development that the world has ever seen. The Mover referred to the State farms. One-third of the acreage of land which is now put to the plough in Russia is farmed on State farms, or on socialised or mechanised farms. The average acreage is from 30,000 to 60,000 hectares. There are some that are much bigger. There is one that is 200,000 hectares and there are others which perhaps approach that magnitude.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman described the state of the labour employed upon these farms and said it was a state resembling in many respects that of slaves. Without going so far as to contradict him, I would point out that there are perfectly competent observers, speaking with authority of what they have seen, whose records are open and are to be challenged, who give a very different description of the state of life upon these farms. They describe a large farm which has upon it a college with 500 students. They have everything that can be needed to brighten life in the countryside. They have their library. They even have a theatre. They have their car parks and they have parks for the tractors which are doing this work, and it is clear that there is a vast experiment in large-scale mechanised agriculture such as the world has never seen, and which should give grounds for most serious thought by all those who are concerned in the growth of cereals in this country. The immediate significance of these large-scale transactions is that already the production of wheat per acre has risen enormously in comparison with the pre-War level, when it was carried on by the peasantry with primitive ploughs and such means as were available. The production per acre has risen, and the price has accordingly fallen. Wheat is much cheaper now than it was when it was produced under the pre-War régime. If you are going to enter into calculations of what dumping is, you are going to have a cost of production which will alter the whole basis of your calculations. One must regard this question, though relatively unimportant this year, as a matter which in the future may be of the greatest moment to cereal producers in this country.

I hoped we should have had an indication from the proposer and seconder of the steps which, in their view, should be put into operation in order to remedy the state of affairs. I am in the dark as to what they are, but supposing complete prohibition was suggested. I do not know whether that is one of the means they envisage, but, even if it were, such a process would not help the agricultural producer in this country one little bit. The selling of 14,000,000 quarters of Russian wheat in Europe this year, if that is the right quantity, would have precisely the same effect on prices whether they were sold on the Continent or in this country. Whatever may be the disadvantages of our corn-importing system, it certainly has some very remarkable advantages. Our bread, in spite of the fact that we are told on some authority that there is a greater spread between wholesale and retail prices than in other countries, is far and away cheaper here than in any country where they have the benefit of quotas, tariffs and devices of that kind. That is one advantage which, I hope, the country people will not deny. Another, that wheat habitually sells lower in this country than in the country of origin, brings to this country an enormous transshipment business, which is beneficial to our shipping and to insurance and the like, in cargoes which are sent out from various countries, which are not ordered but are dealt with on the high seas.

These are very real advantages. If, as the result of prohibition, that quantity of Russian wheat were to be sold on the Continent and lowered the price of wheat in the European market below what it is in this country, we should lose those advantages, for what they are worth, with the very serious Imperial consequences that would follow from it. If it was arranged that Australia and Canada should supply us with all the wheat that we require to import, a quantity of the order of 29,000,000 quarters, they would still have to sell 60 per cent.

of their produce on the Continent. It is, therefore, to their interest that prices should be kept as high as possible on the Continent of Europe. I must apologise for taking up the time of the House for so long, but I thought that I should like to bring the attention of the House back to this question of Russia, and also try to put the position of Russia in the world order of the wheat trade in its proper position.

Captain TODD

I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate, but, as a representative of an agricultural Division, I felt that I must rise to protest against the unreality of the debate this afternoon. It appears to me that both hon. and right hon. Members opposite and those below the Gangway completely ignore the appalling condition of the agricultural industry in the country. Those of us who see the trouble realise that something must be done at once. We cannot consider that this debate, in which we have had a certain amount of wrangling about the meaning of the word "dumping," is really going to help us.

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

The debate this afternoon, I think, has wandered somewhat from the actual words of the Motion which was moved by the hon. and gallant Member. I should like, in the first place, to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Captain Todd), that his suggestion that those of us who sit on this side and the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway are indifferent to the position of agriculture is entirely untrue. It does not necessarily mean that because we differ upon the methods which should be adopted in order to effect an improvement there is any less interest in the needs of that great industry. It seems to me that we have muddled two questions before the House. The actual Motion is simply a Vote of Censure upon the Government because they have failed to prevent the dumping of certain cereals into this country. That is the beginning and the end of the Motion which has been placed before us.

Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the condition of the industry in a way that would seem to imply that the agricultural position to-day is very largely due to the dumping which has been allowed to take place. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion limited it still further by entirely basing their remarks on the question of the importation of wheat from Russia. I should like to point out to the House that, taking the wheat position as far as it concerns us in Great Britain, we are dependent for more than 80 per cent. of our supplies of wheat upon outside sources. We are dependent for barley to the extent of 45 per cent. and to a much smaller extent for oats from the other nations of the world. The policy of the three large parties in this House up to the present time has been such that, in spite of the requests which have been made by agriculture that a protective tariff should be put on in order to benefit agriculture, no party has seen its way to impose such a tariff. When we ask ourselves why, we know perfectly well that the reason which has influenced all political parties up to the present time has been that, on account of the peculiar situation of this country, with its large industrial population dependent, as it has been in the past, to such a great extent upon its export trade, the first essential of that much larger group of the community, the industrial element, was to have cheap food. Every party has felt until the present day, if I may so say, that the interests of agriculture should, if you like, be sacrificed in view of the larger interests of the industrialists, and the claim to have a protective tariff in the belief that it was going to help agriculture has been turned down.

The chief countries which up to the present time have supplied us with wheat number four. The United States, Canada, the Argentine, together with Australia, supplied, in 1928, 91 per cent. of our needs in connection with wheat, and last year 96 per cent. It was only in the present year that we found that there was a diminution in the percentage from those countries. Eighty per cent. for the 10 months up to date is all that we have received from these four countries. We accordingly ask whence have the supplies of wheat come to take the place of that which the other countries have not sent to us? As has been stated, the Russian supply comes before us. Figures have already been quoted showing the total to be 6,700,000 cwts. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion confined themselves entirely to this one item of Russian wheat which they stated was dumped into this country. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion gave us an interesting speech in regard to Russian wheat which was entirely removed from any of the other great factors connected with the wheat position of the world. If you consider that of the 80,000,000 cwts. which have been received in this country, only 6,700,000 have come from the country to which the hon. Member ascribed all the evils of the present day, it really baffles the belief of any person that such a great result could have been secured by such a small amount of goods being sent into this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member noticed the fact, but almost the same amount of wheat came from certain other countries, which included France, Italy and Roumania. In those 10 months, while Russia sent us 6,700,000 cwts of wheat, those countries sent us 6,200,000 cwts. Why is it that the hon. Member has not indicated that these countries might in some way be responsible for the state in which we find ourselves to-day?

When I look at the world position of wheat, as revealed by the interesting figures given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), I cannot conceive how the Mover of the Motion could have imagined that he could deliver a speech upon this problem without having dealt, at any rate to some slight extent, with the extraordinary position of the wheat supply in Canada, and in the United States of America. Let me remind the House again of those figures, though perhaps in a different way. There was an exporting surplus of 615,000,000 cwts. with a probable demand of only 395,000,000 cwts., leaving a surplus of 220,000,000 cwts. of wheat for which, as far as one can see, there is no likelihood at present of there being any special demand, if you look at the position, you find that the four countries which used to supply us with wheat have an export surplus of 500,000,000 cwts. and that the Russian export surplus is 60,000,000 cwts. We find that the one country which the hon. Member has selected as being the villain of the piece has, roughly, 10 per cent. of this great world surplus, which is really the crux of the whole position, and explains the fall in Wheat prices at the present time. When we find accusations made that Russia is responsible to the extent suggested by hon. Members opposite, it seems to me that they are taking the case entirely out of the bounds of reason, and that what might possibly to a very small extent have been argued has been absolutely killed by the exaggeration in which they have indulged.

The same sort of thing applies in regard to the way the German wheat problem has been treated in the past. Last year we purchased something like 110,000,000 cwts. of wheat, and Germany supplied 1,500,000 cwts. That was the amount which came into the country under the celebrated system known as the import, bond system, which has been so often criticised and talked about in this House, and which is in abeyance at the present time. So many questions have been asked and so many remarks have been made about it, that one would have imagined that there was a large amount of wheat coming into this country from Germany; 1,500,000 cwts. as against 110,000,000 is the proportion of the wheat received from Germany. Hon. Members opposite naturally keep clear of figures, because the moment they come up against figures the whole of their case in regard to the dumping of wheat from almost any country falls to the ground, and is practically shown to be nothing more than prejudice exhibited against the Russian people. If you go into the question of the position of barley and oats, you will find that in the case of barley there has been an increase, as the hon. Member says, in the importation of Russian barley, but it has displaced barley from another country. I have looked at the figures in regard to prices which were supplied to me, and I find that in the ease of barley the prices are almost exactly the same as the prices relating to the barley which other countries had been selling to Great Britain. The figures from Russia and other countries are practically identical. Therefore, we have a change from the United States to Russia. The Canadian position, I agree, may be a bigger question, but there is no reason whatever, as far as the United States of America is concerned, why the people of this country should not have the benefit of a cheaper commodity.

The next question that arises is, what is dumping? Hon. Members opposite say that Russian wheat is dumped. That settled the question for them. One or two hon. Members did argue the matter, but the Mover and Seconder of the Motion were cheerfully content in having used the word "dumping." They assumed that Russian wheat was necessarily dumped because they had said that it was dumped. There is nothing Whatever to prove that the Russian wheat supply is dumped into this country. Why should it be dumped any more than the wheat coming from, say, Argentina? Why is it dumped any more than the wheat sent in from Canada or the United States? The idea years ago of what dumped goods meant was that on the Continent a certain amount of goods would be produced and the ring or trust responsible for the goods, not being anxious to see prices lowered in that country, sold the goods at cheap rates overseas because they did not want to sell in their own country. In pre-War years that was usually the kind of dumping that we had in this country and in other parts of Europe. Why should we compare the sale of Russian wheat in this country to a transaction of that kind?

What actually is dumping? One hon. Member suggested that dumping depended upon the rate of wages and the social conditions of the people employed in the manufacture of the goods, or the growing of the crops. Under that definition of dumping it seems to me that we should have to say that all the goods coming from India, China and certain parts of Europe and some parts perhaps of South America would come under the designation of being dumped goods. Another suggestion is that dumping is the sending of goods into this country to be sold below the cost of production in the country of origin. The answer to that has been indicated in the debate, and it is that, in all probability, many countries are to-day selling their wheat supplies at a far lower figure than the bare cost of production. A tremendous fall has taken place in the prices. Therefore, the hon. Member must mean that cereals coming from Canada, the United States and Argentina are all dumped. If he means that, then everything is dumped and it seems hardly worth while to put down a Motion. The question would be whether we should have a protective tariff and whether it is desirable to have food taxes. Generally speaking, it has never been considered that countries like Canada and the United States are dumping their wheat into Great Britain. It is on those lines that. I am arguing the case.

Another point which has been put forward is that dumping means that the export is artificially assisted by the Government of the exporting country. It is rather extraordinary that at the present time the action of Governments of the great exporting wheat nations is rather the reverse. The United States Government and the Canadian Government are financially assisting the wheat pool by providing money in order that supplies of wheat may be held up, in the hope that at some future time a better figure will be secured for the Canadian and the American farmers when they sell their wheat in this country, or elsewhere. Can it be said that we are to apply the same principle to the Russian Government and to say that the Russian wheat industry is artificially assisted by the Government? It seems to me quite impossible for hon. Members opposite to argue that the Russian industry is being assisted by the Russian Government, because I have always understood from them that the great disaster to Russian industry was that it was in the hands of the Government, and that the one thing needed was to get it out of the hands of the Russian Government as State trading at any time was very unfortunate. I imagine that I might have to answer some of my hon. Friends behind me and try to satisfy them that Russian agriculture is not assisted by the State, but hon. Members opposite are certainly not going to plead that Russian agriculture is at the present time being assisted by the Russian Government. Therefore, that suggestion falls to the ground.

Another idea of dumping that has been put forward is that the goods are not being sold at world's competitive prices. We have had a number of suggestions made and a mass of interesting information has been given as to the prices that have been charged for Russian wheat. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have suggested that Russia has deliberately come with her wheat supplies and has deliberately undercut, where it was possible, all the other sellers in the market in order that she might damage in some way the countries to which she was supplying the goods. That is said in regard to Russian commodities in all parts of the world. My belief is that if we look at the financial position of Russia we shall find that there is hardly any country in greater need of financial credit, and there is no other country more desirous of selling her goods at as high a price as possible in order to meet her obligations overseas. Why should it be suggested that she is deliberately selling her goods cheaper than she need do? That seems to be asking us to believe that the Russian Government is in a much stronger financial position than hon. Members opposite would have us believe by their speeches and questions.

The explanation is quite simple. Russia needs credit to meet the purchases of goods overseas and for that purpose she is compelled to sell these goods. If it means selling the goods a little lower than other nations, in view of the extraordinary world position of wheat, she is doing so because of her need of credit, and for no other reason. When we take these various points and begin to analyse them, no arguments have been adduced by the party opposite to prove to me that the Russian wheat supply is dumped. It seems to me that it is a perfectly ordinary business transaction of a community anxious to obtain credit, and in these circumstances they are selling at these low figures. The reason why the prices are so low is not due by any means to the Russian Government but mainly to the extraordinary position of the wheat supplies of the world. I am willing to concede to hon. Members the argument that these Russian wheat supplies naturally have an effect upon an already over-supplied market. It is an important factor when a great exporter, a nation that for many years was one of the largest exporters of wheat, goes for a time out of the market and then comes back into the selling markets of the world. However small the amount of goods that they supply, I can well understand that it would have a certain sentimental effect upon the markets of the world, but it has certainly not had the enormous effect which hon. Members opposite wish to make us believe it has.

There is no case for me to defend in regard to other nations. I have men- tioned the German figures, and no hon. Member seems to have suggested that any other nation is dumping goods at the present time. Therefore, the answer that I give to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion is that I do not feel that in any way they have proved their case that the goods are dumped. If the goods are not dumped, then automatically the censure upon the Government falls to the ground. At the same time, we are in no way blind to the serious position of agriculture in this country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement two or three months ago in regard to this question. He said that when the Imperial Conference had ended, this question, in the light of the discussions with the Dominions and the information that had been received, would be considered by the Government. It is not part of my duty to deal further with that question now nor does it come under the Motion before us, but I make the statement because I do not want it to be thought that because we resist this Motion we are indifferent to the whole problem.

So long as we say that we are going to have no taxes upon the food of the people of this country—whatever may be the position of hon. Members opposite, that is the position of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House—it follows that, so far as we are concerned, the cheaper the commodity that is coming in from the foreign nations the better for the people of this country. Once we have recognised that the industrial needs of our people are so paramount that no protective tariff can be put on in order to help agriculture, it means in regard to the foreign supplies that are coming in that the cheaper they come in the better for the people of this country.

Commander BELLAIRS

Even if produced by slave labour.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

The hon. Member, if I understood him aright, used the word "articles." Does he mean that food should come in as cheap as possible, or other articles?

Mr. GILLETT

I tried to make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that the Motion deals purely with cereals. The question deals with the dumping of cereals into this country, and the remarks that I am making are entirely confined to that question. I am not going into other questions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND

Then the hon. Member does not refer to the cheapness of other articles?

Mr. GILLETT

I am not discussing the other matters. I am anxious that the House shall not think that we are indifferent to this question or that the wider questions are not receiving the consideration of the Government. We repudiate the suggestion that the goods coming in are dumped to any extent that is at all serious. Broadly speaking, I should say that, now that the German goods have ceased to come in, no Government is dumping cereals into this country. I do not consider that the Russian cereals are being dumped but that it is purely a business transaction. Therefore, the dumping of cereals into this country has practically ceased and there is no need to deal with that question. The question of agriculture can wait until another opportunity arises for discussing it.

Viscount WOLMER

I must protest against the extraordinary speech to which we have just listened from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, and also against the absence of the Minister of Agriculture when we are debating one of the most serious aspects of the agricultural problem. The Minister of Agriculture has not taken sufficient interest in the debate to attend during any of the time it has been in progress. That is treating the House with very little respect, and certainly treating the agricultural and farming community with little respect. Instead of having the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, we have had a very interesting speech from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, in which, however, he has not attempted to deal with the agricultural problem. In our Motion we deplore: the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs. We are asking the Government what they propose to do to help the British farmer in the plight in which he now finds himself through the dumping of cereals. The hon. Member made practically no mention at all of this question except in his last few minutes, and all he says is that the matter is now going to be considered by His Majesty's Government. He referred us to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st August last, when he said: The critical position of cereal farmers demands the earliest possible attention. The question of the condition of this class of agriculturists in different parts of the Empire will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, with special reference to Bulk Purchase, Import Boards and Stabilisation of Prices …. As soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known, the Government will undertake whatever practicable steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economic foundation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1930; cols. 891–2, Vol. 242.]

Mr. DUNCAN

What more do you want?

Viscount WOLMER

We want the Government to do it. We were hoping to hear the steps which the Government proposed to take to implement that policy. The time has passed for the sowing of wheat in this country, and to hold up the matter until this late period of the year makes any assistance to wheat growing practically impossible as far as the present year is concerned. We are entitled to demand that immediate measures shall be introduced by the Government. Instead, we get a very interesting and learned dissertation from the hon. Member as to what exactly constitutes dumping and what does not constitute dumping. What we mean by dumping is the importation of cereals into this country under unfair conditions. Last year we said that the dumping of cereals from Germany was unfair, because they came assisted by a State subsidy. We say that the import of cereals from Russia which has been taking place is dumping and is unfair, because they are produced under economic conditions Which would not be tolerated for a moment in this country, and are sold in this country without any relation to the cost of production and for reasons which bear no relation whatever to ordinary trade transactions. Hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies have been bound to recognise the injury to the farmers of this country by transactions of this sort which the Chancellor recognised in his statement last August.

There is no difference of opinion about the facts. The late Minister of Agriculture said that the dumping of German wheat into this country was quite deplorable, and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department himself has admitted that the Russian wheat was offered at prices lower than any other wheat in the world. It is this importation, this dumping, it may be of only 14,000,000 quarters, at prices which are substantially lower than the wheat prices anywhere else which caused the great break in prices which has been the ruination of cereal farmers in this country. We complain that the Government have done nothing. They promised agriculturists to make farming pay. The Prime Minister wrote articles in the public Press saying that the Labour party alone is the only one which has a definite plan for the salvation of agriculture, and then the Government spend 14 months doing nothing. At the end of that period the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up in this House, and reads out a statement saying that as soon as the Imperial Conference is over they are going to put cereal growing on an economic foundation. When the debate on cereal growing takes place, when we are considering the difficulties of cereal farmers, the Minister of Agriculture does not take the trouble to turn up.

Not only have the Government done nothing to assist the cereal farmer, but the actions they have taken have been in the direction of prejudicing his case. The most-favoured treatment which they have granted to the Russian Government is the result of the Treaty they signed last April. About £2,500,000 of the British taxpayers' money has been devoted towards assisting and financing trade with Russia, and the first result of that is the dumping of millions of quarters of wheat on to our markets at cut-throat prices. That is the sort of trade which dislocates the industries of this country and does not offer a basis on which permanent trade between the two countries can be continued. Our complaint about hon. Members opposite is that their agricultural policy is all eyewash. They have not produced a single thing to help the farmers of this country. They talk about settling 100,000 families on farms. Before they have been in office very much longer there will be 100,000 more agricultural workers out of work.

Mr. HAYCOCK

I want to answer one or two points which have been put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). He has told us that our trade with Russia has resulted in millions of quarters of wheat being dumped here at impossible prices. I should like to know what percentage of Russian wheat has come here this year. If the Russians have dumped wheat here, if they are the scoundrels, then the Canadians are much greater dumpers, much greater scoundrels. For every quarter of Russian wheat which has been dumped here, the Canadians have dumped 100 quarters. I am taking the figures over a series of years. If dumping is a crime, then the late Government ought to have dealt with it. We do not know what the policy of the Opposition is. We knew what their policy was in 1923. In 1924 we were promised no tariffs on food. In 1929 they had no policy at all, and now that they are in the cool shades of Opposition they have discovered that selling wheat at a cheap price is a crime. If they do intend to put a tax upon food, then it should be another olive branch between Lord Beaverbrook and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

The public is entitled to know precisely and exactly the policy of the Opposition. Do they or do they not intend to put a tariff on food? Is it a crime to sell food here cheap? If it is, then it is less of a crime if food is sold deal, and in order to be absolved altogether from crime the higher the price the more virtuous you are. If we could only produce famine conditions we should all be saints. The nearer we get to famine conditions, the dearer the food, the nearer we get to millennium conditions. We are told by hon. Members opposite that the trouble is that there is too much food in the world. What a crazy world! All these troubles arise from the fact that there is too much wheat, too much barley. What a crazy world; when food is a blessing, when nature is generous and produces food in great abundance. The great crime of Russia is that she is sending food here at a cheap price. Why are the Russians selling their food cheap? Do they want to sell it cheap, or do they want to get the biggest price they can get for it? Do they deliberately sell food under market prices? Why do the Russians take the prices they do; why are they forced to take the prices which they are now taking? If we were to give Russia longer terms of credit it would not be necessary for her to take the market price.

7.0 p.m.

We are forcing Russia into a position where she has to take any old price that is offered. They have to buy goods. Can hon. Members opposite tell me how Russia is going to buy goods unless she sells goods, unless she performs a modern miracle and buys goods without credit? If hon. Members will tell us how Russia is going to buy goods without selling goods, they will tell us something which even the "Daily Express" will be glad to learn. When there was real slave labour in Russia, in the days when the Tsar was on the throne and the Romanoffs ruled Russia with the help of Rasputin, and when they sent us twice as much grain as they do now, there was no talk about slavery then. If some of those rumours, which are not so frequent in 1930 as they were in 1919, that the Soviet Government has fallen proved true—the Soviet Government used to fall twice a week then, but now it falls only twice a month because Riga is getting tired and the lie factories are not finding the same, market—and if the Tsarist Government were to come back and reaction was again in the saddle, then there would not be so much talk about slave labour in Russia. The real truth is that agricultural labour in Russia was never so well paid as at this moment nor were agricultural conditions ever so good. The Soviet Government with their State farms are giving the peasant the same conditions in the country to-day as exist in the towns.

Mr. BUTLER

Can the hon. Member tell us what they are paying to-day?

Mr. HAYCOCK

I cannot give the precise figures, but, in terms of buying power, the peasants were never better off in the whole history of Russia than at the present time.

Captain GUNSTON

What is the use of having buying power if you cannot buy food?

Mr. HAYCOCK

If the hon. and gallant Member will read some other paper beside the "Morning Post," he will learn that Russia has had the largest grain crop in her history, that her exportable surplus is 10,000,000 quarters of wheat and that she is only going to export 5,000,000 quarters of grain. That must mean that Russia has more food to eat than ever before.

Captain GUNSTON

What about the bread queues?

Mr. HAYCOCK

In Russia, if there is a shortage, there is a queue, and everybody takes his turn. In that country they said that it was not fair or just that some people should have immeasurably too much for doing nothing while those who produced the wealth went short. Therefore, they divided it up. They have critical times there, and they are only doing what we did in this country in time of war. We did it here, only there were some people who were able to cheat the queue.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

What about the surplus wheat?

Mr. HAYCOCK

The surplus wheat in Russia this year is 10,000,000 quarters, but in Russia they are eating more of their wheat. If the Tsarist Government were in power, they would be exporting at least 10,000,000 quarters of wheat, but, because of the system now prevailing, only 5,000,000 quarters are being exported, which means that the Russian people are eating more wheat.

Captain GUNSTON

If there is a surplus of wheat and food in Russia, why are there all these food queues?

Mr. HAYCOCK

There are no food queues as far as wheat and bread are concerned. This Motion is concerned with cereals and not with other foods. There is no shortage of cereals in Russia. But, if the Tsarist Government needed money and found it necessary to export wheat to get money, would it have mattered how hungry the Russians were in the bad old days? Even when famine was stalking the land wheat left Russia for these shores and no one complained. It is not a question of Russian wheat, but of getting something to say against a country whose system you do not like. You system of Tsarist Government which was supported by former Governments. In 1905 when Stolypin—

Mr. SPEAKER

It is now 1930.

Mr. HAYCOCK

There have been a number of questions about the co-operative movement, but only 14 per cent. of their purchases were from Russia and the other 86 per cent. consisted of Empire and home wheat. The co-operative movement have a much better record than the independent buyers. The people who buy the Russian wheat and other wheat are the millers and business people. It reminds me of the people who want tariffs on foreign motor cars and rejoice in the ownership of a Chrysler or some other American motor car. People who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. It is the big business people of this country who are taking advantage of the world market in primary products, while the producers of the world are suffering. Tariffs are no way out of it. I have here a letter, which I will read, from Canada, where they have tariffs, and we can see whether tariffs prevent dumping and afford a cure. The letter is from my father who was once leader of the farmers' party in Canada: Farming operations are now at the lowest ebb we have ever had in Canada. Our taxes are the highest …. I may be compelled to sell my sheep, lock my gates or else go back to the farm myself. I will have to decide soon. We have never had better crops nor poorer prices. Oats 20 cents a bushel, wheat 55 cents a bushel, barley 25 cents a bushel, onions 75 cents a bushel, and so on. Everybody is discouraged.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON

What about these imports?

Mr. HAYCOCK

You do not like to hear about Canada. It is the wrong thing at the moment to talk about agricultural conditions in Canada. They have their tariffs there, they have the highest tariff wall in history, and conditions are worse than they ever were. All over the North American continent things are impossible. They are so impossible that in last Monday's "Daily Express" we saw photographs of people on the other side of the water carrying a label of their occupation pinned upon their foreheads asking for work for one dollar—4s. 2d.—a week. I know things are difficult here for the farming community. I know how important it is that we should have a prosperous agriculture and that we should get as much out of our soil as we can. We live by selling goods, and, if we do not sell, we cannot buy. The other fellow is putting up his tariff walls and preventing us from selling. We must get as much from our acres as we can, but we are in dispute as to the method to adopt.

I know things are bad here, but the fact that the Russians are sending us wheat is not the only reason why things are bad. If there is no money in farming and all the farmers are losing money and living on the money they owe, then land ought to be valueless and should be selling at less than nothing. Where is land now being sold at a small price? I want to help the farmers and to see that they get a square deal here. Those who are responsible for the low prices at the moment are not the Russians but the Canadians. I am speaking as a Canadian who is still very fond of his country and his countrymen. We want not merely Russia to give us a square deal but Canada too. We have heard a lot from Mr. Bennett about how we can bring the Empire closer together. If the rest of the world gave this country the same deal that Canada does, then we could not live. If the other portion of the world put up their tariff wall and kept us out of their markets as Canada keeps us out of her market, we would not be able to get food.

Mr. SPEAKER

This debate is coming on to-morrow.

Mr. HAYCOCK

I shall not talk about Canada any more. We are going to depend on world trade. There is no doubt that world trade will be more indispensable in future than it has ever been. Russia should provide us with an enormous market. There is no country in the world which offers better possibilities for British trade than Russia. a farming and agricultural and raw material producing country occupying one-sixth of the area of the globe. We should be getting into that market now. The only way in which we can get into it is by buying Russia's goods in order that we may send goods to her. I ask those who think in terms of the agriculturist to think in terms also of the engineer, of the employés of Platt Brothers, of Mather and Platt, of Metropolitan-Vickers, who are now working overtime in order to provide goods for Russia. Unless Russia can sell her wheat and her petrol and her timber, she cannot buy the products of Armstrong Whitworth, of Platt Brothers, of Mather and Platt and the other manufacturers who are particularly glad at the moment to sell goods to Russia. For everything that they have ordered the Russians have met their commitments in full. There has been no bad debt created on Soviet Government orders. Do we or do we not want that trade? If we want the trade I ask those who are to follow me in this debate to tell me how the Russians can possibly pay unless they are able to export their wheat, their cereals, their hides, their flax and their petrol.

Mr. FRANK OWEN

I do not propose to answer all the questions which the last speaker has raised, because if I did I should get away from the subject of the Motion, as the hon. Member himself did. A little while ago an hon. Member asked what Liberals intended to do if this Resolution was carried to a Division. I think we can promise him that we shall vote against the Resolution, and for two reasons. In the first place we do not know, because we have not been told, what are the immediate measures which should be introduced for rectifying the present state of affairs; and, secondly, I do not think the case that foreign countries are dumping cereals into this country has been sustained in fact. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party made it clear a week ago that he was against clumping. What has not been made clear is what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he talked about dumping. It is very important that the farmers of this country should know exactly where each party stand when a declaration of that kind is made. We disagree as to what constitutes dumping. Many Members of the Conservative party hold that dumping means any kind of cheap imports admitted into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate many of them believe that. Other people, and among them several Liberal leaders, seem to think that dumping is where goods are permitted to enter at a cost lower than the cost of production in the country of origin. It is extremely difficult always to say what is the cost of production and in my view it is irrelevant.

Take the case of wheat. I have had some remarkable figures given to me this afternoon. We have been told that the world surplus of wheat is something like 153,000,000 quarters, and we have been shown quite clearly that the world demand is something like 94,000,000 quarters. It is obvious that the vast surplus above what the world requires must be loaded on the world's markets at a price which is a great deal lower than the cost of production. Of that total it has been shown that Russia has in fact exported less than 10 per cent. It has been shown quite clearly, too, that Canada has been the biggest dumper of the lot. I want to give one other set of figures. In the years 1909 to 1913 the average export from Russia was something like 19,000,000 quarters out of the world export surplus of 75,000,000 quarters. To-day it is something like 14,000,000 out of 153,000,000 quarters. These figures show quite clearly that Russia is not the cause of the present low prices in the world market. In fact Russia has got better prices in the world market than has Canada.

I had some more remarkable figures given to me this morning in the City. One big transaction carried through towards the end of October enabled Russia, by cleverer manipulation, to obtain 29s. a quarter for certain grain which was put on the market at a time when the best Canadian, of far superior quality, was obtaining only 27s. To-day you can buy Russian grain at 22s. a quarter and Canadian at 2s. or 3s. above that figure. The difference is due to the fact that the Canadian grain is of superior quality to the Russian. In fact this Canadian grain, now being sold at this abnormally low figure, was offered for sale at something like 50s. or 55s. a quarter, but was not sold owing largely to the operations of great grain holding corporations in the United States and Canada.

We must face the situation honestly and plainly, and we must come to the conclusion that nothing can in fact ease the situation until prices are low enough on the grain market to enable these vast stocks to be disposed of. I sit for a grain-growing Division, and I say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party who hold out a hope to the British farmer of guaranteeing his price under an increased production of grain are practising upon him a cruel deception. The markets simply cannot bear further great accumulations of grain stocks. Another thing I must mention. It has been stated in the Press from time to time that the Russian Government are exporting all their white wheat and compelling the Russian peasants to eat rye and black bread. Anybody who has been in Russia or has read anything about Russia knows that the Russian peasant never has eaten a white loaf, and that to-day he is eating the rye loaf just as his forbears for generations have done. It is not a true statement of the case to say that the Russian Government are compelling the peasant workers to accept a lower standard of living than that which existed before.

There is one case in which dumping is a serious menace and might be dealt with, and that is where vast stocks are suddenly unloaded on the market, with the result that they dislocate prices and drive them down, when there is not sufficient supply to meet the demands which are created. A case of that kind can be called dumping. But the trouble is that you can never say that until you are looking back upon it. The only character which real dumping has is that it is spasmodic, and you can never say that until you look back upon it in retrospect.

A point not yet emphasised is that all this dumping of grain or this export of grain at the present time is in fact due to the policy which has been pursued in many great grain-producing countries by grain-selling corporations and grain-holding corporations. The dumping to which we are subject to-day is in fact a condition of the tariff-mongering and export-board-mongering world. These great stocks can only be released on the world market when they have been accumulated, and they are only accumulated, in the hope that by some artificial means you can raise the price of wheat above the world price. In every country that has tried it the result has been a tragic failure for the producer. Let me reply to a challenge that was issued by one hon. Member who has spoken. He asked me whether in my view any commodities were dumped in this country. That is outside the terms of this Motion, but I would say that it has not yet been proved that any commodities have been dumped into this country. In fact there is in operation machinery for dealing with dumped products. Under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921 there is machinery for dealing with dumping. The only two cases that have been submitted to that Committee, under Section 11 of the Act, were turned down. No case has yet been made out in that respect.

There are one or two things which might be done to ease the situation. Russia is unloading these stocks on the world because she so urgently requires money for the industrialisation of the country. She is selling at the best price she can get. The cost of production does not enter into the matter. If we in this country were prepared to give Russia additional credits, I am confident we should in great measure ease the situation. But the whole difficulty of the world to-day, in the grain trade, is not the fact that there is Free Trade in this country, but the fact that there is too little Free Trade in every other country in the world. I do not see how we can persuade the nations to give up the fiscal system that they have adopted, but we in this country should adapt our agriculture to the Free Trade system which we still maintain, and if we cannot grow wheat here at an economic price we should give up growing wheat.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the Houses now prepared to come to a decision.

Question put, That this House deplores the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs.

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 224.

Division No. 35.]	AYES.	[7.29 p.m.
Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	O'Neill, Sir H.
Albery, Irving James	Galbraith, J. F. W.	Peake, Capt. Osbert
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Penny, Sir George
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Pybus, Percy John
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Gower, Sir Robert	Ramsbotham, H.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Grace, John	Rawson, Sir Cooper
Atholl, Duchess of	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesali)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Ross, Major Ronald D.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Balniel, Lord	Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bellaire, Commander Carlyon	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Salmon, Major I.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Samuel, Samuel (Widsworth, Putney)
Bracken, B.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Savery, S. S.
Briscoe, Richard George	Hartington, Marquess of	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Simms, Major-General J.
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Campbell, E. T.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kincidine, C.)
Carver, Major W. H.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hoare, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Smithers, Waldron
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)	Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Christie, J. A.	Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Colville, Major D. J.	Liewellin, Major J. J.	Thomson, Sir F.
Courtauld, Major J. S.	Locker-Lampson, Corn. O. (Handsw'th)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.	Lockwood, Captain J. H.	Train, J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	McConnell, Sir Joseph	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (SomerSet, Yeovil)	Macquisten, F. A.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Margesson, Captain H. D.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dug dale, Capt. T. L.	Marjoribanks, Edward	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.	Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
England, Colonel A.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.	Womersley, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Everard, W. Lindsay	Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Muirhead, A. J.	Lieut.-Colonel Gault and Mr. R. A.
Fielden E. B.	Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)	Butler.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.	Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Calne, Derwent Half-	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Cameron. A. G.	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.	Cape, Thomas	Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetlano)
Alpass, J. H.	Charleton, H. C.	Harbord, A.
Ammon, Charles George	Clarke. J. S.	Hardie, George D.
Arnott, John	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Harris, Percy A.
Aske, Sir Robert	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Attlee, Clement Richard	Daggar, George	Haycock, A. W.
Ayles, Walter	Dallas, George	Hayday, Arthur
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Dalton, Hugh	Hayes, John Henry
Barnes, Alfred John	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)
Barr, James	Day, Harry	Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Batey, Joseph	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Bellamy, Albert	Dukes, C.	Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Duncan, Charles	Herrlotts, J.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Ede, James Chuter	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Benson. G.	Edmunds, J. E.	Hopkin, Daniel
Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)	Horrabin, J. F.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)	Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Bowen, J. W.	Foot. Isaac	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Bowerman, Rt. Han. Charles W.	Freeman, Peter	John, William (Rhondda, West)
Bromfield, William	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Johnston, Thomas
Bromley, J.	Gill, T. H.	Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Brooke, W.	Gillett, George M.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Brothers. M.	Gossling, A. G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Gould. F.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Burgess, F. G.	Groves, Thomas E.	Kelly. W. T.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Kennedy, Thomas

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)	Sinkinson, George
Knight, Holford	Mort, D. L.	Sitch, Charles H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Moses, J. J. H.	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Lathan, G.	Muggeridge, H. T.	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Nathan, Major H. L.	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Noel Baker, P. J.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Lawrence, Susan	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)	Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Lawson, John James	Oliver, George Harold (Ilikeston)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Snell, Harry
Leach, W.	Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Palin, John Henry	Sorensen, R
Lees, J.	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Stamford, Thomas W
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Perry, S. F	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Peters, Dr. Sidney John	Strauss, G. R.
Logan, David Gilbert	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W	Sutton, J. E.
Longbottom, A. W.	Phillips, Dr. Marion	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Longden, F.	Pole, Major D. G	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W)
Lowth, Thomas	Potts, John S.	Tillett, Ben
Lunn, William	Quibell, D. J. K	Tinker, John Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson.	Toole, Joseph
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Richards, R	Tout, W. J
McElwee, A.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Viant, S. P.
McEntee, V. L.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Watkins, F. C.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Ritson, J.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Romeril, H. G.	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
McShane, John James	Rosbotham. D. S. T.	Wellock, Wilfred
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Rowson, Guy	Welsh, James (Palsley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Mansfield, W.	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	West, F. R.
March, S.	Sanders, W. S	Westwood, Joseph
Marcus, M.	Sawyer, G. F.	White, H, G.
Markham, S. F.	Scott, James	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Marley, J.	Scurr, John	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Marshall, Fred	Sexton, James	Wilkinson, Ellen C
Mathers, George	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)
Messer, Fred	Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Middleton, G.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Milner, Major J.	Sherwood, G. H.	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Montague, Frederick	Shield, George William	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Shillaker, J. F.
Morley, Ralph	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Simmons, C. J	Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)