§ Order for Third Beading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSI rise to oppose the Third Beading of this Bill for two reasons: first, because the Minister has not taken power to stop subsidised factories buying raw sugar from abroad, which thus enables them to compete against refineries in Great Britain; and, secondly, because he is continuing to expend public money for purposes connected with the Bill. The Minister has had so many bouquets thrown at him during the last few minutes that I feel that he will take more readily the criticisms which I shall advance against him for not having taken the steps which he might have taken to incorporate the suggestions which I have put before him. We are very glad that the Debate is taking place at this hour, because the last stage of this Bill was taken in the early hours of the morning. During that Debate a Unionist Member described the subsidy as the greatest ramp of modern times, and that expression meets with approval from more than one quarter. These subsidised factories have a very clever Press propaganda, which is persistently sending out information to the Press and creating the impression in the public mind that all is well. It is, therefore, fitting and very proper that a Debate of this nature should take place at this hour, and I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the postponement of the Third Beading last night.
I am afraid that in the last Parliament I worried the House on more than one occasion with my case against this sub- 1011 sidy, but, as the result of my representations and representations made from other quarters, the late Government gave a valuable concession to the local refinery industry in lowering the excise duty. They realized that under the subsidy a real injustice had been done, but during the last few years another injustice has arisen, and I hope to show that it was never the intention of the late Government which passed this Measure, or of the Labour party which enunciated the policy in 1924, that the subsidised factories should purchase raw sugar from abroad and refine it in competition with the local refinery industry in Great Britain. That is the first point which I wish to substantiate.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young)The hon. Gentleman seems to be about to discuss policy in connection with this Measure. As he knows, he cannot go outside the provisions of the Bill on Third Heading.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am opposing the Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERBut the hon. Member must oppose the Bill because of what is in it, and not because of what is not in it. On the Third Reading, it is not permissible to discuss what is not in the Bill.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am opposing the Bill because of its provision to grant a further subsidy to the subsidised factories. My point is that the subsidy under this Bill should not be given, and I will endeavour to show that as a result of the subsidy a great injustice is being done. I submit that that will be within your Ruling. The late Minister of Agriculture, when in 1924 he introduced the original subsidy of which this is an extension, stated that the main argument which appealed to him was that it would stimulate the production of home-grown sugar. He went on to say:
The refiners have complained that the scale of the subsidy as at present drawn confers a preference upon the production of refined sugar as compared with the production of what may be called raw sugar, and thereby they fear that the attempt which we are making to assist one British industry will merely be made at the expense of another established industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th Dec., 1924; col. 1289, Vol. 179.]1012 He explained that that was a misapprehension, and that the policy was to stimulate home grown sugar.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI am afraid that I cannot allow a discussion on the original policy. It was not allowed on Second Reading.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am not anxious to discuss the original policy, but to show what was the original policy, of which this is an extension. During the last three years these subsidised factories have been importing large quantities of raw sugar, and under this Bill they are to be allowed to continue that policy. It was never anticipated that this would happen; the recent report on the sugar beet industry published by the Ministry of Agriculture points out that it is a practice of recent growth. It says on page 189:
By far the most important subsidiary industry in recent years has been the refining, during the off season, of imported raw sugar obtained from both cane- and beet-growing countries, and this has enabled these factories to reduce the cost per ton of beet worked.The practice I am complaining of is one of recent growth, and under this Bill the Minister could have taken steps to stop it. He was offering a valuable concession to the subsidised factories, and could have taken steps to stop them from importing raw sugar, which would have had the direct effect of encouraging them to offer a higher price to the farmer, so as to get the raw material which they require for their industry. The farmers of Great Britain are suffering to-day as a result of this practice. The subsidised factories are buying sugar from abroad. They have written down their capital, or, rather, they have made in former years, and if they could not purchase this raw sugar from abroad they would be far more inclined to offer a higher price to the farmer for his supplies. The Minister, in the interests of his Department, and in the interests of home grown sugar, should take steps to stop at the earliest possible moment what I say the legislature never intended to sanction in 1924.How large have been the imports of foreign sugar which has been melted by these subsidised factories has only recently come to light. This valuable report reveals that in 1928 92,000 tons of raw sugar were brought here and 1013 melted, in 1929 212,000 tons, and in 1930 160,000 tons. Sugar being to-day about £6 10s. a ton, the total trade amounts to nearly £1,000,000 a year. I am not saying the Minister is creating more employment in one place than in another, but the direct result of his policy is that he has diverted trade worth £1,000,000 a year from the pockets of one industry to another industry. That cannot continue. First of all we have granted enormous sums to these fortunate individuals, and afterwards we allow them to secure this large trade, which they otherwise never would have secured, and which they would not secure to-day if this Bill were not passed; because the case for this Bill is that unless it is passed beet will cease to be grown, large areas will go out of cultivation and the factories will close down.
This practice started, I think, in Scotland, or rather it started with the Anglo-Scottish Beet Corporation. It is extraordinary that this company—it is characteristic of all the companies—should be allowed to use public money to divert trade worth £1,000,000 a year from one set of traders to another. This Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Corporation borrowed £750,000 from the British Government while having a capital of only £250,000.
§ Dr. ADDISONI have not the slightest objection to the hon. Member castigating the people responsible for these proceedings, but his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI submit that this Bill enables these factories to continue in being, and that I am entitled to point out the result of the Minister's action. If he had not taken the action he has taken these factories might well have gone out of business altogether. This particular company is really the most fortunate in the world, because I have never known a single public company able to borrow £3 for every £1 they put up themselves. I never heard of any ordinary company with a capital of £1,000,000 being able to borrow £3,000,000 on that capital, and, in addition to that, receiving 5 per cent. interest.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is now going a little wide of 1014 what has been laid down by Mr. Speaker in regard to this Debate.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI am anxious to obey your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I would like to point out that there is no other opportunity under the Rules of the House which will permit me to deal with these facts. As you will know, Sir Robert, when we are in Committee of Supply I cannot deal with anything which involves legislation. Therefore, this is the only opportunity I have got. I waited for an opportunity until the early hours of this morning, and yesterday morning, to draw attention to this case. I have already said that this Bill enables these factories to continue, and I am trying to show the result of what has happened, and what will continue to happen in the future. This is not the first Bill which has been brought forward on this subject. The subsidy has been reduced as the years have gone by, and the fortunate individuals who have secured these enormous sums of money in the past are anxious to put pressure on the Government. As as result of that pressure, we have brought in the Bill which is now before us. What security have we that we may not be faced in the near future with further Bills borrowing further sums of public money for these fortunate individuals? It is not as if these individuals were numerous. Their shareholders are not many in number, being only some 2,300 altogether. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Foreigners."] Whether they are foreigners or not, I am not anxious to submit to the House, but I know that their machinery is bought mostly from abroad.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENNot the Anglo-Scottish.
§ Sir G. COLLINSI will state where these firms have bought their machinery.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWNMay I point out to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that these companies are named in the First Schedule of the Bill, and the list includes the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation. All the companies are named, and surely my hon. Friend is entitled to discuss what will happen as a result of the passing of this Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member can discuss only what is in the Bill and not what has happened in the purchase of machinery.
§ Sir G. COLLINSThe marvellous White Paper which has been issued lifts the veil and reveals the truth to the public as to how this large sum of public money has been spent. The British Beet Sugar Corporation have placed in reserve a sum equal to 90 per cent. of their capital, and their shareholders number only 38. The Home Grown Sugar Limited have placed to reserve £128,000. They have 700 shareholders and their ordinary capital is only £125,000. Consequently, they have placed to reserve a larger sum than their whole capital. The Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd. has placed to reserve sums equal to 60 per cent. of their ordinary capital, and now these companies are asking for more money. The Minister has been far too generous. No doubt the companies think he has been hard upon them, because all people who have received enormous favours of public money, when those favours' are not equal to those they have received in the past, feel that they have a grievance. In view of all that has happened, I regret that the Minister did not take the steps which he could have taken, and, so long as this injustice continues, so long as the Minister by his policy is diverting a sum of £1,000,000 per year from one industry to another, he is doing an injustice which he cannot seriously continue to do.
The late Government realised the state of things which I have put forward today, and, as a result of our efforts, we were able to secure real assistance. Now this further disadvantage has been placed on the shoulders of the refining industry, and I suggest that the Minister should take steps in some way or other—I understand that the Minister is responsible, because he is administering this fund—to remedy this injustice which is creating unemployment in one quarter in order to provide employment in another quarter, and public money is being used for that purpose. By all means spend public money to promote home-grown sugar, but what you are doing now is diverting trade from one area to another, and you are placing an economic injustice on one set of shoulders and at the same time giving economic favours to another class. I 1016 think the Minister of Agriculture must see the reasonableness of my contention. No one could realise that this would be the result when the subsidy system was first-started.
§ Dr. ADDISONWhy blame me?
§ Sir G. COLLINSI blame the Government for not taking action to remedy the injustice whoever is responsible for the initial policy. The right hon. Gentleman has asked me why I blame him. I contend that the original policy was initiated by a Labour Government and was afterwards carried out by a Conservative Government in 1925, but even that Government, when it realised that an injustice had been done, took steps in 1928 to remedy the injustice. It is since 1928 that this new development has taken place. So long as this continues, so long will these subsidised companies be able to buy more sugar from abroad, and the less willing will they be to pay a reasonable price to the farmer, whose chance of securing a fair price for his beet will be weakened and whose hands will be tied. He will be weakened in his competition as to prices with these subsidised factories, because they can buy their sugar from abroad. If their power to purchase their raw material from abroad is removed, they will be more willing to pay a higher price to the farmer for his beet.
I have tried to put these points fairly and to state my case accurately. I feel that in the last Parliament we succeeded, and, although we may not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister on this point, I am still hopeful that, when he again comes to the House to ask for more money for this purpose, we may receive a more sympathetic answer than we shall receive this afternoon. This large expenditure is coming out of the public purse. In an earlier Debate to-day an hon. Member on this side of the House spoke in opposition to the principle of subsidies. Once you grant a subsidy, no one can tell where the benefits will ultimately result—[Interruption]—or the injuries, as my hon. Friend says. This point was put to Ministers a few years ago. This subsidy should cease. It is a scandal that—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI must again point out that we are not discussing the question of subsidy, but the advances provided for under this Bill.
§ Sir G. COLLINSThere should be no more money granted to these companies. Why should they come here and ask for public money? Have they not received millions already? How much more are they going to ask for? Surely, I am entitled to protest against this pouring out of millions of public money into the pockets of a very few. I am prevented by many rules and regulations from raising this matter on other occasions, and, surely, you will allow me to make my final protest against what I think the Minister will agree is a real injustice to the refining industry. I sincerely hope that he will take steps sooner or later to remove the injustice to which I have referred this afternoon.
§ Mr. EDEThe last speech gives me cause for very serious misgiving, because it shows that, once these devious courses are embarked upon, the most obvious son of grace will fall from his high estate. The doubt that now exists with regard to the fiscal beliefs of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe only matter that now arises for discussion is the fact that proposals have been submitted for certain advances. Mr. Speaker, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), gave the following Ruling:
As regards this particular Bill, I understand that the proposal is that certain circumstances have arisen which may make it necessary to make advances to the sugar industry. The only subjects that would be in order in the debate on this Bill would be whether certain circumstances justified the proposed advances, and the conditions under which they should be made.
§ Mr. E. BROWNSurely, the issue raised by these advances is whether the circumstances do or do not justify them. There are, I understand, some thousands of men in Silvertown and in Greenock who will be placed in great difficulty with regard to their employment as a result of this competition, which has nothing to do with the growing of beet, but is a competition between, on the one hand, a factory that is subsidised, and, on the other hand, a factory that is directly taking public money in advances of this kind. Surely, any Member whose constituency is affected, or who wishes to stop waste of public money, is entitled 1018 to raise the whole question as to whether the advances are justified or not.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIf an hon. Member confines his observations to the advances provided in this Bill, that will be in order, but to go outside those advances into the general question of the subsidy would not be in order. As this question was raised on the Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, who sits in the same part of the House as the hon. Member, perhaps I had better read, for his information, the first part of Mr. Speaker's Ruling:
I should certainly say that it would not be in order to discuss the merits of the Sugar Subsidy under this Bill. The subsidy was granted, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, in an Act of Parliament, and it cannot be reviewed unless the Question before the House is that of its renewal or repeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; col. 406; Vol. 255.]
§ Mr. BROWNI have no desire to raise the question of the subsidy at all. My object in searching for a Ruling is this: While we may not discuss the subsidy, surely we are entitled, before we grant these advances, on the Third Reading of this Bill, to discuss the circumstances, because, unless we can do that, the Minister will not be able to say whether the advances are justified or not.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERAt the very beginning I told the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that that would be in order, but I considered that he was going far wider.
§ Mr. EDEI desire to confine myself strictly within the narrow limits of Mr. Speaker's Ruling; I do not contest it for one moment, and I hope I shall be able to say what I desire to say without going outside it at all. I think I am entitled to say that the circumstances of this case are such that they have compelled one whom I understood to be an absolute and sincere Free Trader to ask that these subsidies shall not be continued as in this Bill, because he desires to prevent these advances from being made, believing that they will have the effect of enabling people to get certain things into their factories that he thinks ought to be dealt with in his own constituency.
§ Mr. E. BROWNNo; that is quite wrong.
§ Mr. EDEThe hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), after spending some time in trying to help the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), is now trying to hinder me. He mentioned that Greenock was one of the places affected. This is the kind of thing that always happens when these advances are made to particular people. The most enlightened son of grace finds that a person who is in no way connected with grace has robbed his soul of the purity it used to possess. I do not think that this Bill ought to pass without its being made quite plain to the Minister that many of us on this side of the House view the Measure and the making of these advances with the gravest misgiving. I doubt if this Bill could be left to a free vote of the House; I doubt if there is a majority in the House for it—in fact, I am certain that there is not. But we recognise that the circumstances, which have not been created by the Minister, but which he has inherited from his predecessors, probably make this Bill a very regrettable necessity. While, however, we may be prepared to recognise it as a necessity, we want the Minister to understand that we regard it as a very regrettable necessity, and I am speaking, I know, for a large number of Members on these benches when I say that any future Measure further to extend these advances or in any way to continue this subsidy will have to be justified very clearly and explicitly on the Floor of this House before we shall feel that we are doing justice to our constituencies, where there are no sugar refineries. You have to find the money for this very favoured industry from industries which are labouring under the greatest disadvantages. If he is able to justify it, I have no doubt he will get our support, but he will find me at least a very difficult person to convince that any justification for a consideration of this policy can be made.
§ Dr. ADDISONI am very glad that an opportunity has been afforded to me to explain to some of my friends what the Bill is about, it is evident that they have misunderstood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen 1020 (Sir H. Samuel) which was for the most part entirely irrelevant and had nothing to do with the Bill. I am not responsible for nor is this Bill concerned with the original policy. If I had been responsible for the agreements made under the Act of 1925, they would not have been in the form they were. The unprecedented drop in sugar prices coincided with the circumstance that under the Act the subsidy dropped from 13s. a cwt. to 6s. 6d. That coincided with an unprecedently low world price of sugar, several shillings less than it had been for several years before the War. The result of those two things occuring at the same time was that it was impossible to get an arrangement for growing the beet, and I had to try to devise some arrangement in the interest of agriculture so that we could continue a sufficient measure of cultivation in the country without suddenly finding that a large amount of land which had been designed the year before for sugar beet cultivation this year was not being cultivated. That was my difficulty and the proof of it is that negotiations between the farmers and the companies had been going on for three or four months and there was no prospect of get ting any arrangement by that means. This scheme was designed to help us to secure a modicum of sugar beet grown where the land was suitable, where they could grow it at substantially lower prices. I took care that this proposal embodied two principles, that the whole of the extra money that Parliament would be asked to give should go to the grower and should not remain with the factory—
§ Mr. EDEThat does not alter my argument at all. I could apply the same argument to the shipbuilders in my constituency.
§ 2.0 p.m.
§ Dr. ADDISONThe hon. Member could not. If any of this money could be kept by the factory, he could apply the argument. The advance can only apply under these conditions. The factories are not allowed to keep anything for profits, they are not allowed to put anything aside for depreciation or reserve, and their accounts are to be open to our accountants to inspect. I have secured that this money is to be used only for securing the continuance of the cultivation of beet. The hon. Member wants to sacrifice the 1021 whole of that. I agree that some of the factories are wealthy and they have done well out of the British taxpayer, better than they ought to have been allowed to do, but that has nothing whatever to do with me—it occurred years ago—and it is not concerned in this Bill. These factories have not taken advantage of this arrangement and they are not paying the growers the price for the best. The fact is that not a single halfpenny of this money goes through the factories' accounts at all and all the criticism of them that has been made is entirely beside the point. The proof of this is that those factories, wealthy as they are, which have paid lower prices to the grower and have refused to take advantage of the Act, have suffered a decline of their beet sugar cultivation by 44 per cent., while those that are taking advantage of it have suffered a decline of only 18 per cent. The whole of the benefit goes to the grower. We made the agreement so that the factories cannot place a penny to reserve. I cannot be accused of further enriching these factories. We have prohibited them from putting anything to depreciation. Hon. Members have not understood that, otherwise they would not criticise the proposal in the way they have done.
§ Mr. EDEI did not say a word about the factories. My point is equally sound whether the money goes to the farmer or to the factory.
§ Dr. ADDISONI was confronted with an arrangement whereby we had the risk of about 300,000 acres of arable land going out of cultivation, and I had to try to devise some arrangement to prevent it. That is my justification, and I am justified because I secured the cultivation of about 240,000 acres. The next thing done by the Bill is that this has to be repaid. That has not been understood. It is arranged in this way that, if after this year sugar rises to a certain price, plus an allowance for depreciation, but nothing for profit, this advance has to be repaid before any profit it taken. That has not been understood. I am not enriching these factories at all by the arrangement, but it is true that I am allowing them to have the opportunity of making beet sugar in accordance with the Act to enable the growers to grow beet. That is the whole case. I come to the point of the hon. 1022 Member. To my surprise, the total amount of imported sugar refined by these factories altogether, the whole lot of them, including the wealthy ones that are not taking advantage of the arrangement, was 161,000 tons, refined from imported raw sugar. That is the volume of the grievance of the hon. Member.
§ Sir G. COLLINSTo-day, what about to-morrow?
§ Dr. ADDISONWhat about the other factories, the great solid group in whose interest this proposal is made I How much did they refine? They refined 1,650,000 tons. In other words, the total importation and refining by all these factories together was only one-tenth of this other group. Why do these factories refine raw sugar? How does it affect them? When the beet season is over they have nothing to do. After the beet has been converted into sugar, after February or March, the campaign ceases and, therefore, they are confronted with the necessity, if they have refining machinery, of either importing raw sugar to make use of the machinery and thereby reducing their overhead charges, or of having the whole factory standing idle without anyone employed during the summer months. That is what the hon. Member wants. He is a Free Trader.
§ Sir G. COLLINSIt is not a question of being a Free Trader. It was the original scheme.
§ Dr. ADDISONThe proposal is that I am to refuse to assist people who produce in the aggregate only one-tenth of what the other factories combined produce. They are to keep their factories standing idle during the summer months and dismiss their employés in order that those other great concerns which already produce nine-tenths may have the advantage of this morsel.
§ Sir G. COLLINSA million a year.
§ Dr. ADDISONAnd that comes from a Free Trader. I do not profess to be a, worshipper at the shrine of Mr. Cobden perhaps as faithfully as some hon. Gentlemen. I think that circumstances have changed and that views are not necessarily enduring, but I confess that it never entered my mind in my most heretical moments to make a 1023 proposal of that kind. The chief offenders against which the hon. Member is complaining are not coming into this Bill at all, because they are not using this machinery and not paying the proper price to the farmer. They are not getting anything even in their accounts, it does not apply to them at all. I am afraid that I have been a little warm in this matter. I do not often rouse up, but this proposal does rouse me. I am not prepared to allow those in the most necessitous arable areas of the country to be done. I have taken the most extreme and minute precautions to prevent these factories from receiving a halfpenny benefit out of the proposal. Therefore, I hope that this thoroughly sound Bill will be given the Third Reading.
§ Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPEI will not stand for more than a moment or two between the House and the Division, but the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) was so misleading that I hope that I shall be allowed to correct two assertions which he made and which to my personal knowledge are definitely inaccurate. One was that the growth since 1928 of the practice of refining in the subsidised beet-sugar factories was rendered possible by the subsidy. As a matter of fact, that recent growth—the practice of refining in those factories—is directly due to the action of the hon. Member and his friends in asking for an alteration, in favour of the refiners, of the Customs Duty in 1928. That alteration was made by the House, and it reduced the relative value to the beet-sugar factories of the subsidy then paid. It was necessary for those factories cu look round to find some means of replacing that loss of relative value if they were to be able to give the same terms that they were offering then in their national contracts to the farmers. The very alteration in favour of the refiners gave the opportunity. One of the weak spots of the sugar-beet industry has been the fact that the campaign, as it is called, the work in the factory, is concentrated by natural causes from which they cannot get away within a period of about 100 days, just over three months. In the past the sugar-beet manufacturer, during that three months campaign, has had to bear the whole burden of the overhead charges for the year, because there 1024 has been no possibility of spreading those charges over other items of manufacture.
It became not particularly remunerative but economically possible in view of the alteration made in 1928 in favour of the refiners for the refining part of the sugar-beet manufacturing machinery in the factories to be used during the idle period for the refining of imported sugar. The result has been that in those factories where this practice has been possible a very large portion of the overhead charges, the cost of maintaining the technical staff and so on, throughout the greater part of the year has been carried by the refining and been taken away from the cost of the ordinary sugar-beet campaign. Consequently, those factories have been able to offer to the farmers better terms pro tanto than would have been possible if the refining had not been the practice during the summer months. I do not wish to say any more, because I realise quite well that what I have been saying is strictly out of order. But I thank you, Sir, for allowing me to correct the misleading statement which was made in the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock.
§ Mr. E. BROWNI will keep within the Rules of Order. The very warmth of the Minister will make the House and the country more uneasy. We do not believe that this is a good Bill. It is a very bad Bill and the last of a series of bad Bills. I have never given a vote with greater pleasure in my life in this House than the vote which I gave against the original Bill in 1924. I only regret that the House is not now full and that it is not possible to divide against the Bill to-day. I do not mind whether these factories refine foreign sugar or not provided they do it out of their own funds and not out of the pockets of the taxpayer. I do not mind whether there are one hundred or a thousand factories providing they are buying sugar fairly and in open market upon an equal basis. The protest which we make against the Bill as against the whole of the policy is the taking of public money to favour certain people in a particular industry at the expense of the general taxpayers and to the detriment of other people who are trying to carry on industry without such public money. 1025 Why then should not the Greenock Factory, or any other factory not operating under the Schedule of the Bill, have a similar amount of loan or money? The whole thing is rotten from the foundations. It cannot stand on its own foundations. The moment the stream of public money dries up, the thing is shown to be the artificial creation which it was from the beginning.
There can be no doubt that this is a very bad Bill. It may be an ingenious Bill, but sometimes the worst Bills are the most ingenious. The right hon. Gentleman has been very hot to-day. The House and the country will get a great deal hotter in the days immediately ahead of us about this subject. It is a public scandal. At a time when we are worried as to how our finances are going to meet at each end, with a Supplementary Budget ahead of us, we pay these huge subsidies and, in addition, we are making loans to people many of whom ought to be able to take money from their own reserves, because they have made enough money, as the Minister admits, in recent years. It is not a matter of shibboleths. You do not get rid of an injustice by labelling it with a shibboleth. That device is to save lazy people the trouble of thinking. If you want foreign sugar to be imported let the people who can handle it best for the well-being of the public who consume the sugar, do so. It is not right for successive governments to make payments from the public purse to one side of an industry which is denied to the other side. These are our objections to the Bill, and I am sure that they will gather force in the days ahead.
§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTONI cannot allow an attack of the kind that has just been made on a nascent industry to go without a reply. The attack is entirely unjustifiable. By the introduction of the subsidy we have created a new industry in this country.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member was not in the House earlier when it was ruled that we cannot discuss the subsidy on this Bill. That was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on the Second Reading. All that we are concerned with are the loans that are to be advanced under this Bill, and repaid.
§ Sir D. NEWTONI apologise. I do not want to widen the scope of the Debate, but I would point out that the price of sugar to the consumers in this country is lower than the price in any other country.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.