HC Deb 05 February 1932 vol 261 cc399-425
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour)

I beg to move, That the Order, dated the 24th day of December, 1931, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, he approved.


Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that the two Motions on the Order Paper for to-day be taken together for the purposes of a general Debate, leaving the House free to, vote on them separately?


I. think that was done on the previous occasion, and, if it is the will of the House, we might take the same course to-day.


I am grateful to the hon. Member for the suggestion, which I am sure will meet the convenience of the House. Hon. Members will have in their possession the two Orders which have been issued dealing with products under the Importation (Horticultural Products) procedure. The commodities with which we are dealing to-day differ materially, however, from those which were debated under a similar Order issued by the Board of Trade. We are dealing with perishable goods. I should like particularly to emphasise the fact that, in the main, we are dealing with goods on a seasonal basis. In some of the cases or in a large number of the cases they are products of a luxury character, or they can be properly described as of a luxury character for certain earlier periods and then they merge more into general crops.

The House will observe that a considerable number of these Orders have not yet come into operation and that only a limited number of them have been in operation since the 5th January of this year. Therefore, I am not in a position to give very definite information at this stage as to what has happened in regard to the revenue collected under the duties, or the effect which the duties have had in restricting the imports into this country. As I explained to the House in introducing the proposals originally, this is largely experimental work on the part of the Government. In framing the duties, one had to bear in mind that the object was to stop as fat as possible the importation into this country of things which are unnecessary or purely luxury products, and, on the other hand, to have due regard to the circumstances of time and the opportunity for alternative production in the various industries affected. In regard to grapes, it was clear from conferences with the industry that the industry would not be in a position in the immediate future for this year to increase the output of grapes, but it was clear that the action of the Government, showing that they intended to take definite steps in the matter, would be a direct incentive to the industry to expand their glass and plant new vines. Therefore, in cases like that the duties that have been imposed under the Orders are moderate.

It may be felt by some hon. Members that some of the dates and some of the duties may not meet the case of their own particular district, but I can assure the House that the duties have been imposed after very careful consultation with representatives of the industries concerned and that in dealing with the matter I have taken into account all the information and advice which has been open to me and my Department from those particularly concerned. On rose trees there is a duty of 30s. per 100 as from the 5th January to the 30th April, but that does not preclude me from dealing at a subsequent period with rose trees which come in at a later date in the year. We shall have to deal with that matter under the wider Measure, the terms of which we discussed in the House yesterday. In the case of flowers, our effort has been to put the cheap outdoor grown flowers at an advantage, for the reason that we do not grow them in this country at that particular time, but we have endeavoured to put the heavier weight of duty against flowers produced under glass, which we can stimulate in this country. It is possible that we can alter and modify these proposals in the future.

The first Order is wider and more comprehensive than the second Order, which deals with tomatoes. We have endeavoured to treat this problem with moderation, more so because I was well aware when I was dealing with the matter that there lay behind it the wider policy of the Government in regard to it. From the point of view of the horticultural producer in this country, the one thing that is essential is to give him confidence as to continuity of policy. I hope that confidence has been assured to him by the policy which we have pursued in this matter. The alternative remains open to me to deal with some of these problems either under the Horticultural Products Act which runs for the year or under the wider Act, but in any case the market gardener, the bulb producer, the plant producer have an incentive to proceed with the growth of the products to which they have paid attention, and can feel that the Government's policy is not a purely temporary one. I shall be glad to answer any questions which may be put to me.

Already, there are indications from various parts of the country that the growers realise the opportunities which lie before them. Reports have come to me and to the Department from many parts of the country of the efforts which are being made to increase the production of broccoli and strawberries, and other products, which of itself will have an effect upon the canning industry, a growing industry of considerable importance to the consumer.

Within the last week I and my officials have been in close consultation with the larger buyers representing the great hotels and the railway companies, and from them we have received a great deal of useful information as to how we can assist in developing the use of the products we are considering to-day I look to that conference, and to the subsequent. steps that arc going to be taken for co-operation between those who are purchasers and distributors of these products, as of great importance in regard to the grading and attractive packing of these products and placing them before the consumers of the country

in carrying out the powers which have been placed in my hands I have endeavoured to give encouragement at the earliest possible moment to these industries and at the same time to have regard to the possibility of producing the articles ourselves. The problem of potatoes presents peculiar difficulties this year. The very early potato is obviously a complete luxury, but at a later date one must have regard to the general supply of potatoes in this country. This year, as it happens, there has been, owing to climatic circumstances, a shortage in the potato crop. That, of course, is a material consideration, and one which has weighed with me in dealing with that problem. Some may think that I have been too moderate, others that I have been too extreme, but I have honestly tried to hold the balance and deal with this experimental problem in the light of the knowledge that I have been able to get from the industry. I hope that the House will affirm these Orders.


Once again we on this side of the House have to confess to a feeling of disappointment at the lack of completeness on the part of the right lion. Gentleman in explaining why the Order has taken the form it has; why these duties, to be placed on luxury articles to prevent their importation, should cover the whole field of vegetable and fruit production. There has been no explanation why these duties have been placed on those essential articles which we find in the list in both these Orders. The Minister of Agriculture has said that it is too early to state the effect of these proposals. That places us at a disadvantage. Only three or four commodities have so far been taxed. The duties apply in a few cases from the 5th January, but the majority of the commodities are to be taxed at later dates. We have had no explanation why cherries are to be taxed from the 1st May to the 30th June, currants from the 1st May to the 31st July, and gooseberries from the 1st May to the 30th June. There has been no explanation why there should be these different dates. We know that these goods come into competition with home products in a more intense form at certain times of the year, but we do not know why many of these articles only appear in the Schedule at a later date. The right hon. Gentleman has had consultations with nurserymen and market gardeners and other interested people, but it is difficult for anyone to understand why cherries are to be taxed at 3d. per lb., currants at 2d., and gooseberries at ½d. per lb. No reason is given for this difference.

I understand that the duty is assessed on the wholesale value, but there is no hint in these Orders as to whether it is a tax on the percentage value of the wholesale price or whether it is arrived at by negotiations between the interests concerned and the Minister without any regard to the consumer or anybody else. There is a great deal that remains to be explained. Take the case of strawberries, which are to be taxed at 2s. 6d. from the 1st April to the 31st May, but on the next day, the 1st June, the tax is to drop to 6d. What is the explanation of that? Why is it necessary to put a tax of 2s. 6d. for the month of May and a tax of only 6d. for the month of June? The public is very much concerned about the increase in prices which these Orders must entail. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has had some difficulty in dealing with the question of potatoes because of the shortage of supply, but notwithstanding the great dearth of potatoes the Government propose to put a tax of 2d. per pound on the importation of potatoes, although it is disguised in the Order. The rate is to be 18s. 8d. per cwt. and those who work it out will find that the actual rate is 2d. per lb. from the 5th January to the 29th February. From the 1st March to the 31st March, it is to be at the rate of 9s. 4d, per cwt. or 1d. per lb., and from the 1st April, a very significant date which appears very approximately in these Orders, to the 1st June it is to be 4s. 8d. per cwt. or one-halfpenny per lb. The Minister told us that he had special difficulty with regard to potatoes. We do not know why these assessments are deemed to be appropriate in any case.

There are flowers such as carnations, pinks, heather, marguerites, mimosa, narcissi, Star of Bethlehem and violets. Why does the Minister not bring in a botanical catalogue and include all flowers? Why are such flowers as heather and carnations, grown under entirely dissimilar conditions, and narcissi and violets, assessed at 2d. a lb.? I imagine that flowers and stalks and leaves are all to be weighed together and a charge made upon the gross weight. Why is the period of the duration of the tax as long as the Minister has power to impose it, from 5th January to 11th December? It is some comfort to know that there will be an end to these Orders for a short time. The 11th December is the last date for the application of the tax, and we can hope for a merry Christmas if the taxes have been removed then once and for all.

We sympathise with the Minister in this matter. He is the victim as well as ourselves. He does not know what the effect of these Orders will be. He does not share our premonitions. We believe that the effect of the Orders will be universally bad. We think that this artificial method of stimulating production of vegetables and flowers can lead only to inefficiency at the cost to the consumer, for the consumer will certainly have to pay in all these cases. The man who buys a bunch of flowers, the woman who buys vegetables for the family, will have to pay an additional price. It will be the same in the case of fruit. The Minister cannot escape from the fact that the tax will mean an addition to the cost of living. He is imposing a tax upon food, solid and substantial. The tax will impose a heavier burden upon the housewife, and in the long run that is what matters. The housewife is complaining already that the cost of fruit and vegetables has gone up. In my home I get a good deal of instruction in these matters from my wife. The housewife knows that the cost of living has already gone up.

We are sorry for the Minister. We do like him. But he will go down in history as the author of a tax on nourishing and sustaining food; the author of a tax on beauty, on flowers that are beautiful in colour, and sweet in smell. He will be held responsible for having denied his country people of a great many of the joys of life, and especially that section of the people with whom he cannot be out of sympathy, the poorest of the poor, who will find it exceedingly difficult to spare from their slender resources the amounts that are demanded in this Schedule. These proposals may help the Treasury but the money can be ill spared by those who are earning low wages or are unemployed. The Minister should be here to-day dressed in a white sheet of repentance for having brought forward these proposals, but apparently he has left it behind him. We shall oppose the Bill when it is presented to the House, and we shall oppose these Orders, because we believe that they represent a mistaken policy.

11.30. a.m.


Although the hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed his intention to oppose these Orders I want to say how much they have been appreciated by the producers of the articles referred to. Not only the producers, but I believe that amongst the consumers there is a great deal of appreciation for the effort which is being made to have these articles produced at home so that the consumer can obtain them fresh and of the best quality. I am sure that the Minister will be the last to object to reasonable criticism of a constructive nature. He has told us that he has made every inquiry within his power to arrive at dates which will he suitable to the industry. The only way in which we can ascertain whether the dates are suitable is by experience of the operation of the duty, and that, of course, none of us has yet. On behalf of the growers I would express grave doubts as to whether the dates are likely to give the best results. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman, if the dates are proved to be unsuitable, to alter them without a great deal of difficulty and without having to come to the Rouse again? If that is not so, I would put one further question to him.

With regard to potatoes particularly, we believe that one of the dates is far too early to have a beneficial effect. The early crop, the importation of which would be prevented for a time, may be held up, and then come into this country to enter into severe competition with what are termed the "second earlies" or possibly the main crop. Does the Minister treat "second earlies" as "earlies" under the Order? Will the main crop come under the regulations that we discussed yesterday? Then of course there would be the assistance given to them by the 10 per cent., at any rate pending the inquiry which might possibly result in an increase of that amount. I would like to be clear as to whether the "second earlies" and the main crop come under the regulations which we discussed yesterday. I would also like to know whether in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, if they do come within those regulations, that will be adequate to compensate for the early date mentioned in the Order. We think that date is too early to give full advantage to the potato-grower.


I do not criticise this Order in any harsh spirit, and I do not intend to deal with it from the point of view of the growers of vegetables, or the producers of either main crop potatoes or the semi-early crop which comes from the Midlands and from up-country, but I think that some changes might be made. I think that the ordinary vegetable grower will have the advantage of the 10 per cent. duty with which we dealt yesterday. As far as the luxury trade is concerned, from what I can learn this Order has proved very efficient. I am not very interested in that except from the point of view of providing employment, but here I think the Minister has done a very good piece of work. I have no doubt that that is why the so-called Labour Members object to it—because it is bringing actual work and wages to people who were unemployed. As regards the luxury trade, however, I think there are one or two errors in the dates in this Order. There is a difference between early crop potatoes, grown in Sussex, for instance, and the early potatoes which are grown in the West Country, in Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. These come on to the market many weeks earlier and are a luxury. In a particular year when there is a shortage of potatoes they may take the place of the others, but they are not like the ordinary up-country early crop which is the natural result of the ordinary rotation. These early-grown potatoes from West Cornwall are quite different. They are purely luxury articles used by the big hotels and by comparatively well-to-do people though, no doubt, in a year or two when we get back to prosperity, we shall find artisans making a big demand for them as they used to do before we were cursed with a Socialist Government.

I would like the Minister to give careful attention to three points. First, there is the duty of 2s. 6d. per lb. on strawberries up to 31st M ay. I suppose that British strawberries grown out of doors will hardly be affected at all by that duty. The duty of 6d. per lb. from 1st to 15th June—not for the whole of June and subsequent periods, as the speaker for the Opposition seemed to think—may help the Tamar Valley growers and the growers of early luxury strawberries to a certain extent. Under present conditions in regard to the balance of trade I think the Minister ought to look into those dates again. I have already sent him some evidence upon the point, and I need not weary the House with it, but I think that these particular dates require some slight alteration. There is also the matter of new potatoes. The dates for the duty proposed in the Order will not help luxury growers in the West Country very much. It may conceivably help the Channel Islands, but this is not a Measure solely for the promotion of the prosperity of the Channel Islands—which have been described as "the tax-dodgers' paradise." I am all in favour of helping the Dominions and giving the Channel Islands a reasonable chance, but I do not think that it is necessary to subsidise and encourage producers there at the expense of West Country growers who are doing something—thanks to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Cornish County Council—to capture the luxury trade in these articles.

The third point to which I direct the Minister's attention has reference to the duty on flowers. I believe that a duty of so much per lb. is probably the easy way of collecting the money, and I do not grumble at the Minister's action in this matter. It is far better to put on these duties quickly than to waste time in building up machinery. The right hon. Gentleman has done something in this matter and has provided a. good example to a very large number of Members of previous Governments. But this is a flat rate duty and it does nothing to encourage the production of high grade stock. We have gone very far in the West country to improve our standard of production and to have high-grade flowers properly packed and turned out in good condition such as are to be seen at the Royal Horticultural Society's exhibitions from time to time. But the producers who take this care do not get any more encouragement than if they simply slapped the whole lot into a box and sent it up in that way. Could the duties not be readjusted so that high-graded stock from abroad had to pay a higher duty and so as to give an extra protection to more efficient production at home? If that were done, then people would take trouble to bring their businesses up to date.

I would like the Minister in his reply to give us some approximate estimate of the amount of money which is going to be raised under this Order. That consideration is always of importance, and it is particularly important now when we have in this House a peculiarly inefficient Opposition which never goes into matters of finance. So inefficient have the Opposition become, that we require a subsidised Opposition as well, but. I am not going to develop that point, because it would hardly be in order. We should like to know, however, how much money is expected to come in from this Order so that we may have some proper estimation and understanding as to how far it is going to help the Government, both from the financial point of view and from the point of view of the development of trade.


I am rather pleased that this Order is before the House and that we have had an opportunity of hearing the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) upon it. There must be many Members of this Parliament who had not previously had the opportunity of listening to his melodious voice and who may be unaware that he was known in the last Parliament as "Tennyson's Brook." Certainly as regards the length of time occupied in talking there was no inefficiency on his part in the last Parliament although I am afraid that the substance in his speeches had no relation to the length of those orations. It may be that on horticultural or agricultural matters the present Opposition is not quite as efficient, if judged by the length of the speeches which they deliver, as the hon. Member for Torquay was for a period of two years, but we do claim that in dealing with these matters we come to the point as quickly as possible and deal with it.

The hon. Member suggests that the Opposition should oppose these Orders because they are likely to find work for people—a most curious argument. If he will read Conservative newspapers and acquaint himself with some of the facts. of the situation, his interventions may be more to the point. For instance, the "Daily Telegraph" of to-day says that these Orders, plus the Abnormal Importations Duty, plus the anticipated 10 per cent. tariff have already had effect in various parts of Europe, and, instead of finding more work for our people there is a clear indication here to the contrary. I want the hon. Member for Torquay to tell all those people who cater for visitors at Torquay during the summer, some of whom may be Welsh miners, that the chances are that the number of visitors to Torquay in the coming summer will be fewer as a result of his support of Orders such as these. Here is a reference to the effect that these Orders are likely to have on a very great and important industry: Disquieting reports which have been current in London coal circles for two days past received confirmation last night in official messages from Berlin. These announce that Germany has followed the example of France and Italy in taking discriminatory and most severe measures of restricting the import of British coal. The Hon. Member for Torquay will remember that some hon. Members who sit on the Opposition benches represent hundreds of thousands of mineworkers and their wives and families in this country. The report goes on: Hamburg coal importers have been instructed by the Reich Coal Import Board that, as from Monday last, they may only import 140,000 tons per month of English coal, as against 200,000 tons per month during the preceding four months, and an average of 300.000 tons per month throughout last year. This involves a, loss to Britain of 2,000,000 tons per annum in coal exports, equivalent to the employment of 8,000 miners all the year round. The hon. Member for Torquay can now comfort himself in the knowledge that his support of the tariff proposals will put 8.000 miners out of work during this year.


May I remind the hon. Member that for years and years there have been special discriminatory Orders against our coal and other things going to foreign countries, and nothing has ever been done to stop that, but under yesterday's proposals we are for the first time being able to retaliate and to make agreements and get these duties taken off?


If the hon. Member knew much more about the coal industry than he appears to do, he would know that no discriminatory tariffs have been levied against Great Britain. Indeed, all hon. and right hon. Members must know that for generations we have depended very largely on our exports of coal to France, Germany, Italy, and other countries, and it is because of the dislocation in the trade of Europe and the world generally that our exports have been cut off here and there. Here is a further indication as to what the effect of the present Government's action is likely to be—more people out of work instead of more people put into work.

I should like to refer to the two Orders which are now before us. The right hon. Gentleman in his first few sentences indicated that the significance of these Orders did not rest in the duties already suggested but in the threat that he makes in regard to action in the future. Can he give us any indication as to what these further steps are likely to consist of, whether they are going to be more brutal and more effective than the present figures and dates? I should also like to know why, when dealing with mushrooms and flowers, the commencing date should be the 5th January and the concluding date the 11th December. Are we to take it from those two dates that the right hon. Gentleman intends to impose duties upon mushrooms of 8d. per lb. throughout 11½ months, but for Christmas week people will be able to have mushrooms and steak, or whatever they couple with their mushrooms, quite free from duty; and, if so, will he tell us why mushrooms are of greater value during Christmas week than during the other 51 week of the year? It would be interesting to know, because that applies not only to mushrooms but also to flowers. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why flowers have more value during the two Christmas weeks than during the other 11 months and two weeks of the year? What was the advice that he received from his advisers when he was fixing these dates?

Then again there is a duty of 2d. per lb. on six or eight noted categories of flowers, which include "Star of Bethlehem," but for other cut flowers 9d. per lb., and I want to ask whether that latter category will include such delicious blooms as sunflowers, because, if so, they will be almost £1 each; and will he tell us why the duty on carnations, for in- stance, is identical with that upon marguerites? There seems to have been no discrimination in the real value or the price of the blooms, and I am rather surprised that his expert advisers have left not only the right hon. Gentleman but Members in all parts of the House in a state of confusion in this matter.

With regard to new potatoes, I notice that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), as usual, is watching the interests of the farmers and at the same time forgetting the interests of the consumers.


I did not say so.


No, but it is always understood, when the hon. Member rises in his place, that he thinks of the few and forgets the many. He must know that there has been and still is a tremendous shortage of potatoes in this country. We have witnessed during the past few weeks what some people describe as a potato ramp, with growers withholding supplies, and prices soaring to a point where the average working-class wife has found it extremely difficult to purchase any potatoes at all. The hon. Gentleman is pleading with his right hon. Friend further to restrict imports of new potatoes during the early months so that persons who otherwise would be consuming these imported potatoes would be consuming old potatoes and not leaving the old potatoes for those who can afford to buy none better. If the right hon. Gentleman has any sort of sympathy with the great mass of consumers in this country, he will not be drawn by the hon. Member for Stone in the interest of the unscrupulous merchant who has been withholding stock so as to send up the price of potatoes to a figure much higher than the average working-class housewife can afford to pay. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he must know that it is perfectly true.

The only other commodity to which I wish to refer is tomatoes, which is in the second Order. All the Members sitting on the other side or below the Gangway have made great play with the wonderful amount of employment which will be created if a duty be imposed on imported tomatoes. I have been watching the price of imported tomatoes, and the net result of the right hon. Gentleman's second Order will be that for the months of June and July the consumer of the imported tomato in this country will have to pay 2d. a pound more, and ld. a pound more for a further two months, but in no case will the duty increase the price of the imported tomato to the normal price of the English grown tomato. Therefore, it seems to me scarcely high enough to be protective, but just high enough to compel the poor, miserable wretch, who can afford to buy only the lowest price commodity, to pay even more for it in the future than in the past.

12 n.

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is one of those sympathetic souls in private life, and, after the Debate which took place here a few weeks ago, I did at least feel that he would have some human sympathy, and that he would have excluded this very well-known article of food, which is almost a necessity, from these Orders. After a few weeks' delay, not having included tomatoes in the first Order, the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, in the second Order, to impose this duty upon imported tomatoes. I should like to ask him two questions arising out of this subject. First of all, can he give us any idea what effect these Orders are going to have upon our export trade to the Canary Islands? We have access to the Canary Islands for our exports on similar terms to the mainland of Spain. We sell considerable numbers of diverse articles produced in this country, but if we are to discriminate against the Canary Islands, particularly with regard to tomatoes and new potatoes, as we are doing in these two Orders, will the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication of what the Canary Islands are contemplating with regard to retaliatory measures? It seems to me that these Orders will do two things. They will slightly increase the cost of certain commodities to the consumer. That is almost a certainty. They will not find more work for British workpeople. They will, however, tend so to disturb our relations with other countries, that the ultimate result will very likely be that fewer people will be at work than before the Orders were introduced. Although the right hon. Gentleman has taken the first plunge, due to very unsound advice from some of his supporters who are more enthusiastic than they are reasonable, I want to ask him, almost to plead with him, to hesitate long and seriously before he contemplates a further Order which is bound to be as drastic in its effect, in a small way, as the first Order.


When the Minister was making his statement, I was struck by his remarks about his negotiations with the vine growers. He was careful to say that while they cannot immediately produce the additional grapes required as the result of the imposition of the duty, yet the encouragement he was giving them would cause them to feel justified in planting new vines to meet that demand. That seems to me a most reasonable method of conducting these negotiations. I should like to call his attention to the fact that if he were to adopt a. similar policy in giving the growers of soft fruit some idea of what his intention might be with regard to the treatment of fruit pulp, and of foreign canned fruit, he would give a great stimulus to the planting of soft fruit in this country, because I think it is so easily forgotten that you cannot suddenly produce a black currant bush or raspberry canes in full bearing. It is a question of two years in the one case and three years in the other, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give the growers some indication that it is the Government's intention to limit the introduction of foreign pulp, both in black currants and raspberries, I feel certain that the market gardening community would get to work and start planting further acreage. It is not too late now to put in either of these two crops.

Then, may I say one word about flowers? Surely everybody appreciates the great difficulty of taxing a commodity of this sort, because, unlike most imports, I suppose in nearly every case these flowers are consigned to commission salesmen, and nobody can say until the sale has actually taken place what their value is. But the present method of charging the duty on the weight, as has already been pointed out, has many serious drawbacks. I am told that in the case of tulips, owing to their light weight, the duty will give very little relief to the growers in this country. That may possibly be because tulips are being forced abroad, and plants were started in growth before the duty comes on. What strikes me as being so illogical is that, whereas the duty on forced tulips, which are obviously a luxury, is a very light tax, when summer comes and gladiolus flowers come from Holland, owing to their being very heavy, they will pay a very heavy tax. That seems to be a most illogical proceeding because if gladioli bear a heavy tax in summer, how can you justify only a light tax on tulips, which are undoubtedly a luxury, in January?

I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will notice these things as they occur, and I feel certain that he will do his best to put them straight. May 1 suggest that it would even now be possible to consider this method of applying the duties? If these flowers are consigned to salesmen at Covent Garden, would it not be possible for the tax to be ad valorem and paid by the salesmen who actually effect the sales? If the right hon. Gentleman would only do that, he would satisfy all parties and would meet the points raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the higher the class and value of the flowers introduced, the higher the tax should be. 1 hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am in any way ungrateful for the advantages which he has conferred upon the horticultural industry. He has done exceedingly well, if I may say so, but I am certain that he will be the last person to think that his scheme is absolutely perfect. I am sure, therefore, that he will watch its working during the present year in order to be able to make it even more efficient.


The House has decided that this taxation shall go on, and these Orders are only carrying that decision out; I am not complaining of that. Nor am I complaining of hon. Members on the other side praising the Minister for what he has done in looking after the interests of their constituents. They represent agricultural constituencies, and the object of these Orders is to help them. No one can complain of that. When a mining question comes up, it is dear to me, and I do all that I can to improve the condition of the miners. That is natural, but we have to have regard to the consumers and try and prevent undue pressure being put on them. A duty is being put on potatoes. The laws of supply and demand give the producers great power, and, if prices become excessive, has the Minister any power to restrict them? At one time potatoes sold at £5 a ton—a low price; the price has now gone up to from £8 to £10 a ton. If it goes up to £12 or £13, has the Minister any power to call a halt? Is it fair to allow those who have control of potatoes to go to any price owing to the restriction on foreign potatoes? That would be unfair to the consumer, and would kill the intention that is behind the duty. I ask the Minister to give us some assurance that the House of Commons will not lose altogether the control of prices.

The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) derided us on our lack of opposition. I hope that we shall not fall into the same vein of humour into which he fell in the last Parliament. I want our obstruction to be constructive. With all due deference to him, he in the last Parliament seemed to persist in trying to keep us as long as he could, and, if he had known the feelings that we had towards him, he would not have carried on as long as he did. I do not want to make myself what I thought about him in the last Parliament.


While being grateful to the Minister on behalf of my constituents, I would like to ask him whether he could in the future reconsider the date as regards broccoli. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are developing the broccoli industry, and these duties will undoubtedly help, but where we fail at the present, and where these duties will not help sufficiently, is in the production of early small broccoli. The producers have to buy the seed of the early small broccoli from France, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could consider altering the date in order to achieve the object which I think would be achieved by such an alteration, namely, the fostering of the early broccoli, he would do much to complete the work which is going to help agriculture considerably.

The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) expressed some concern that the miners would be unable to spend money this year in the holiday resort of Torquay; I presume that he also doubted whether Welsh miners would be able to spend money on resorts such as exist in my constituency, like Margate and Ramsgate. I think, however, that, thanks to this Act and thanks also to the policy of the Government, the miners will be able to spend more money this year in holiday resorts. I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that if they have been unable in the past, and are at present unable to spend money, it has not been because of Orders such as this, but owing to the bad leadership of the miners, which has led them and their industry to such depths of depression.

I am not frightened that these Orders will not help the grower, nor am I frightened that the consumer will have much complaint, or that the landlady who has to buy her produce will have much complaint because of it. As part of the policy of the Government, which will fit in with the industrial and agricultural system of this country, it will play a part in a general revival which will help our holiday resorts. There is scarcely a member of the Front Opposition Bench, from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader downwards, whom I have not seen paddling very happily on Margate beach during the summer, and I think that they will be able to paddle there this year with greater contentment than ever in the past.


I do not look upon these Orders as likely to make any provision for the improvement of British agriculture. They are a definite indication of the full taxation policy which has been pursued by the Government ever since it took office. Is any Member who faces the fundamental facts of the situation prepared for a moment seriously to suggest that some of these duties, which are imposed on the staple foods of the common working people, though they have been suggested by the Minister as luxuries, are not a direct attempt to enforce tariffs on important everyday foods of the working-classes? Let us examine these things from the point of view of reason and common sense. If the farming class in this House are anxious and willing to bring forward a policy of agricultural reform and reorganisation, they can assure themselves of getting the full support of Members on the Opposition benches. While the Government are placing what hon. Members have readily admitted is a tax on certain articles of food which are common everyday purchases of the ordinary working family, there is no guarantee that the British farmer can supply the need.

What is the position with regard to tomatoes and potatoes? In the last few weeks there has been a tremendous rise in the price of potatoes, and the position in some parts of the north of England has been such that potatoes have hardly been purchasable at all. They are getting to such a price that the working-class cannot afford to buy them. Why put a duty on new potatoes coming in at this time of the year? New potatoes may not be within the reach of the pockets of ordinary working men and women, but they are within reach of a certain proportion of the population, and if they buy new potatoes then it means that the old potatoes are available for people with low wages. I regard this Order as levying a direct tax on many articles of food of the common working people. I agree, as one of the speakers from this side said, that farmers are entitled to come to this House with reasonable proposals for their industry, which we recognise need reorganisation; but if this is to be the form, then agricultural reorganisation is being carried out at the expense of the stomachs of the poor people of this country, and that is a wrong policy. Some of the dates at which these import duties on foreign vegetables are to operate are ridiculous; and I notice also that in the case of flowers the duty charged is so much per pound, and would like to know if that charge falls on the stalks as well.

I suggest very seriously that a large number of these duties are not justified, will not help British agriculture, but will add to the already distressed conditions prevailing among some of our working people. The farming element in this country ought to take advice from some of their own experts. I have been receiving letters, unsolicited, from farmers in the West. Riding who disagree entirely with the proposals of the Government for the reorganisation of British agriculture, and put forward suggestions of what ought to be done. Some say that the land ought to be free of the heavy rents which have to be paid to landlords, and also that farmers ought to be relieved of the burden of the tithe rents. That is the opinion of the farmers—these are not letters from colliers. I say this procedure has been framed with the definite intention of putting tariffs on the foodstuffs of the common working people; and yesterday's Debate makes it more certain than ever that that is the solid intention of the Government. We of this party oppose that policy as a means of reorganising British industry. When the Government bring in a Measure the fundamental basis of which is the reorganisation of British agriculture on sound and comprehensive lines we shall be prepared to give it full consideration.


The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is well able to look after himself, but at the same time he has exhausted his right to speak in this Debate. He was told in the last Parliament that his nickname was "Tennyson's Brook." His nickname in the present House of Commons will be worthier than that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite also has a nickname, a very honourable one, or I should not mention it. It is a nickname generally given to those who accept direct orders from others who can give them instructions.


Tell us what it is.


No, I am not going to do that. I will go back to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay. He may know a. great deal about large farms, but he does not know very much about small holdings and small farms of some 20 or 25 acres such as are found in the Channel Islands. Perhaps he will do me the honour to consult with me on this point, or he might do even better by going to the Library and consulting some of the interesting documents to be found there. When he accused the islanders of being tax dodgers he was making an absurd statement. Anyone who lives in the islands on an income derived from London will find that that income has been subjected to Income Tax, but, with few exceptions, the people of the islands are poor, 'and with incomes outside the range of the Income Tax of this country.


I am very sorry if I have offended my hon. Friend, which is the last thing I wish to do. I was not referring to the general run of the islanders, who I know, are smallholders, but to the fact that the islands are very fortunate in having attracted a considerable number of rather well-to-do people. From the point of view of taxation those people find their position in the Channel Islands to be much more favourable than if they remained in this country.


Those are British subjects who have migrated from the main land, and it is up to this House to catch them. It surely cannot be suggested that the islanders should penalise them because they had come to the islands to spend money. If the people on the mainland think that those particular persons are dodging taxes, then let them outlaw them! The islands cost this country nothing, and why should they contribute towards the Income Tax? The people there buy all that they do buy from this country—every single thing. I do not believe they purchase any quantity of foreign goods at all—and they will purchase less than ever of them under this new tariff system. During the War, although they were not obliged to do so, they gave 17½ per cent. of their population to the defence of this country, and they received no thanks whatever from this House. Every little State in the world which sent troops was thanked by name, but the islands, who gave of their best, and are still suffering in cones quence—


We had better now return to the Order which is before the House.


To go back to the produce of the islands. Their exports of new potatoes begin in May and go on in June and into July. The price received is usually very low. If the islander and his womenfolk did not work hard it would be quite impossible to pay the enormous rent which land fetches in the islands. When new potatoes come in they have the effect of reducing the price of old because there are some people who prefer a new potato to an old one, although I contend that an old potato is infinitely better than an early new one. The hon. Member opposite has stated that if you put a tax on any food the immediate result is to raise the price of that food to the poor people. In this connection, I would like to state what occurred within my own knowledge. Some time ago I had the pleasure of serving under one of our greatest proconsuls whose name is a household word in this country. There was within his State an important city where foodstuffs were subject to a very heavy octroi duty which weighed very heavily on the population, and the pro-consul determined that, for the benefit of the poor people of that State, he would remove that duty. It was removed, and its removal was followed by the extraordinary result that the price of foodstuffs immediately rose by 25 and 40 per cent. I do not propose to attempt to explain to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) why it was that that rise in the price of foodstuffs took place, but nevertheless it is a fact which he can verify for himself if he cares to do so.


As the hon. Baronet has made a definite statement that the removal of an octroi duty was followed by an increase in price, I think he ought to give the name of the city to which lie has referred and also the details.


If the hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to know all that there is to be known about this matter it is open to him to investigate it, but what I have stated is a fact and after all Facts are chiels that winna ding. Hon. Members opposite hold that import duties must necessarily increase the price of food, but perhaps after what I have stated they will modify their opinion, because there are two sides to a question. There is the case of the Canary Islands, where labour is exceedingly cheap, and rents and rates are very low compared with the rent and rates of producers in this country and in the Norman Islands, with the result that competition with the produce raised in this country is very unfair. That is why I am glad that there is now some prospect of us getting a little revenue from this source.


I would like to answer one or two of the points which have been raised. Hon. Members no doubt feel that while these duties may be satisfactory in certain cases, there are circumstances in which they will have to be considered in the light of experience. An Order made at short notice may be found to need some revision after a little experience. We had a discussion in regard to soft fruit in a previous Debate, and I am able to say that fruit pulp, under the new proposals, will also be dealt with. The same applies to potatoes. At first, we were dealing with new potatoes of the early variety. I am in-dined to think that what has been said about the shortage of this crop has been somewhat exaggerated, because, judging from the information which is at the disposal of my Department, I do not think there is likely to be any serious shortage. The main crop of potatoes will come under the 10 per cent, duty. I

have been asked why the date has been fixed for the end of December. That has been done because the Act expires on that date. I think that is all I need to say on this occasion. There may be deficiencies in regard to the dates and other details, but on the operation of the main Act a case can be put before the Committee, and if satisfactory evidence is forthcoming the dates can be reconsidered. I hope the House will now give its approval to these Orders.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 31.

Division No. 47]. AYES. [12.35 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Denman, Hon. R. D. Mabane, William
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Dickie, John P. MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Donner, P. W. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Alexander, Sir William Duggan, Hubert John MeCorquodale, M. S.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.) McKie, John Hamilton
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,) Dunglass, Lord Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Edmondson, Major A. J. McLean, Major Alan
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Elmley, Viscount Maclean, Rt. Hn, Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Aske, Sir Robert William Emmott, Charles E. G. C. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederik Wolfe Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Maitland, Adam
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Falle, Sir Bertram G. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Fermoy, Lord Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Flanagan, W. H. Marsden, Commander Arthur
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fraser, Captain Ian Martin, Thomas B.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Fuller, Captain A. E. G. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Bernays, Robert Ganzoni, Sir John Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Millar, Sir James Duncan
Blaker, Sir Reginald Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mills, Sir Frederick
Blindell, James Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Boulton, W. W. Goff, Sir Park Morrison, William Shephard
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Goldie, Noel B. Moss, Captain H. J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E, W. Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Muirhead, Major A. J.
Broadbent, Colonel John Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Munro, Patrick
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Graves, Marjorie Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Grimston, R. V. Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Browne, Captain A. C. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hales, Harold K. Nunn, William
Burghley, Lord Hanley, Dennis A. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Burnett, John George Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Palmer, Francis Noel
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Patrick, Colin M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Pearson, William G.
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Petherick, M.
Carver, Major William H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hillman, Dr. George B. Pickering. Ernest H.
Castle Stewart, Earl Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Pike, Cecil F.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Potter, John
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Hare-Belisha, Leslie Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hornby, Frank Pownall, Sir Assheton
Chalmers, John Rutherford Horsbrugh, Florence Pybus, Percy John
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Chotzner, Alfred James Hume, Sir George Hopwood Ramsden, E.
Christie, James Archibald Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Rankin, Robert
Clarry, Reginald George Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Clayton, Dr. George C. James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Conant, R. J. E. Jamieson, Douglas Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Cook, Thomas A. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Cooke, James D. Ker, J. Campbell Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Cooper, A. Duff Knight, Holford Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Copeland, Ida Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Leckie, J. A. Robinson, John Roland
Leech. Dr. J. W. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Liddall, Walter S. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lindsay, Noel Ker Runge, Norah Cecil
Cross, R. H. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Crossley, A. C. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lymington, Viscount Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Scone, Lord Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Selley, Harry R. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Summersby, Charles H. Wells, Sydney Richard
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Sutcliffe, Harold Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Tate, Mavis Constance Wills, Wilfrid D.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin Templeton, William P. Womersley, Walter James
Smiles. Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon Worthington. Dr. John V.
Smithers, Waldron Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Ward, Lt -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Soper, Richard Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Southby. Commander Archibald R. J. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Briant, Frank Hicks, Ernest George Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hirst, George Henry Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar, George Holdsworth, Herbert Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jenkins, Sir William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Edwards. Charles Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Lawson, John James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Logan, David Gilbert Mr. John and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lunn, William
Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, Valentine L.

Resolved, That the Order, dated the 24th day of December, 1931, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, be approved.

Motion made, arid Question put,

"That the Order, dated the 21st day of January, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 33.

Division No. 48.] AYES [12.44 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Chalmers, John Rutherford Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Goff, Sir Park
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Chotzner, Alfred James Goldie, Noel B.
Alexander, Sir William Christie, James Archibald Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Allen, Sir. J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Clarry, Reginald George Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Clayton, Dr. George C. Graves, Marjorie
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Conant. R. J. E. Grimston, R. V.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Cook, Thomas A. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Cooke, James D. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Cooper, A. Duff Hales, Harold K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Copeland, Ida Hanley, Dennis A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Courthope, Colonel Sir George L Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsford)
Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Cross, R. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Crossley, A. C. Hillman, Dr. George B.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Blaker, Sir Reginald Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Blindell, James Denman, Hon. R. D. Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Boulton, W. W. Dickie, John P. Hornby, Frank
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Donner, P. W. Horsbrugh, Florence
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W. Duckworth, George A. V. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Broadbent, Colonel John Duggan, Hubert John Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.) Hume. Sir George Hopwood
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Dunglass, Lord Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) Edmondson, Major A. J. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Browne, Captain A. C. Elmley, Viscount James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Jamleson. Douglas
Burghley, Lord Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Burnett, John George Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Ker, J. Campbell
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Falle, Sir Bertram G. Kirkpatrick, William M.
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Fermoy, Lord Knight, Holford
Carver, Major William H. Flanagan, W. H. Knox, Sir Alfred
Castlereagh, Viscount Fraser, Captain Ian Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Castle Stewart, Earl Fuller, Captain A. E. G. Leckie, J. A.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Ganzoni, Sir John Leech, Dr. J. W.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Liddall, Walter S.
Lindsay, Noel Ker Palmer, Francis Noel Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera Patrick, Colin M. Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Pearson, William G. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Lymington, Viscount Petherick, M. Smithers, Waldron
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Somervell, Donald Bradley
MacAndrew, Capt. J.O (Ayr) Pickering, Ernest H. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
McCorquodale, M. S. Pike, Cecil F. Soper, Richard
McKie. John Hamilton Potter, John Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
McLean, Major Alan Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.) Pybus, Percy John Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Ramsden, E. Sutcliffe, Harold
Maitland, Adam Rankin, Robert Tate, Mavis Constance
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Templeton, William P.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Reid, David D. (County Down) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Marsden, Commander Arthur Reid, William Allan (Derby) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Martin, Thomas B. Renwick, Major Gustav A. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Merriman, Sr F. Boyd Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Millar, Sir James Duncan Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Mills, Sir Frederick Robinson, John Roland Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Morrison, William Shephard Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Moss, Captain H. J. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wells, Sydney Richard
Muirhead, Major A. J. Runge, Norah Cecil Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Munro, Patrick Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo Womersley, Walter James
Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Worthington, Dr. John V.
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth) Scone, Lord
Normand, Wilfrid Guild Selley, Harry R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Nunn, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Sir George Penny and Sir M. McKenzie Wood.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) McEntee, Valentine L.
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hicks, Ernest George Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Briant, Frank Hirst, George Henry Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Holdsworth, Herbert Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Logan, David Gilbert
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lunn, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Grundy, Thomas W. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. John.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Resolved, That the Order, dated the 21st day of January, 1932, made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, 1931, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 2nd day of February, 1932, he approved.

Back to