BOARD OF TRADE. (Hansard, 23 February 1939)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross)
I hope that I shall be permitted to express the apologies and regrets of my right hon. Friend that he is prevented by illness from attending the Committee this evening. It has consequently suddenly devolved upon me to deal with a number of matters with which he intended to deal himself. This Estimate was originally an Estimate for £320,444, the revised Estimate is for 672 £329,244, and the supplementary sum therefore is £8,800. The figure is arrived at as follows: There are, first of all, the two items of £9,000 which relate to special services and to the Food Defence (Plans) Department salaries, and further, there are savings under the sub-head, which amount to £27,500, leaving net savings of £9,500. There is a deficiency in the appropriations-in-aid amounting to £18,300, and that leaves us with the net figure of £8,800.
The Vote is more clearly seen if we look at the total savings under the subheads, amounting to £27,500, and take the latter half of the items from D. 1 down to F.2 at the bottom of the page. These items total £19,500 and are self-balancing. They are offset on the other side under the headings H.14 and 15 which, hon. Members will see, also total £19,500. That leaves the savings on the sub-head at only £8,000, but to this must be added the remaining appropriation-in-aid of £1,200 in respect of contributions from the Argentine Government, which gives a total of £9,200 to be deducted from the £18,000, leaving £8,800.
There is, first of all, the Special Services, for which we are asking the Committee for an additional sum of £9,000. That arises out of the prolonged negotiations at Washington in connection with the Anglo-United States Agreement. It was anticipated that when the British Mission left this country in February of last year they would be returning in the month of April, but in fact they did not return until the following November. The amount which was originally provided for them in the current financial year was £1,200, and it was provided under Head A.3, "Travelling and incidental expenses," but by direction of the Treasury these expenses were charged exceptionally under the Head A.2, Special Services, and that explains why, under sub-head A.3, there is now a saving of £1,000, and also why the £9,000 is charged to Special Services.
The next item relates to the Food (Defence Plans) Department Salaries, and here again we are asking the Committee for an additional sum of £9,000, which is the cost of additional staff, that staff having been increased from 83 to 138 persons. This increase is accounted for in a number of ways. Additional staff was required in connection with the 673 Essential Commodities Reserves Act, under which, the Committee is aware, the Department has power to acquire and store commodities. These duties obviously require responsible and knowledgeable officers. A considerable proportion of the cost of the salaries of these persons will be offset by the appropriation-in-aid on the Board of Trade Vote.
There was an additional expenditure in connection with the September crisis which temporarily added largely to the Department's activities. The staff was then augmented from several Government Departments. A very small part of this additional cost is accounted for by the necessity of establishing a small inspectorate to supervise the storage of ration books. The Committee will appreciate that these ration books necessarily run into tens of millions. They are stored in many different warehouses in the country. Lastly, there is considerable increase in the personnel due to the general strengthening of the Department in order to procure a speeding-up of the emergency plans.
I come now to the savings. The first of these is an item of £6,000 upon salaries. That saving is almost entirely due to a drastic curtailment of the work of the Census of Production office. That was necessary in order to provide clerical staff for the intensified defence preparatory work of other Departments, such as the Food Defence Department and the Industries and Manufactures Department of the Board of Trade. It is mainly offset in the Food Defence Supplementary Estimate which we have just been discussing. The next item is that of travelling, which I have already mentioned. The third relates to law charges. This Estimate proved insufficient because future legislation is never susceptible of close estimation. The remainder of these savings are the self-balancing items I have already indicated. I think that that has covered the ground, and if hon. Members have any points to raise I shall be prepared to do my best to answer them.

§ Mr. T. Johnston
We all regret the absence of the President of the Board of Trade and the cause which prevents him from being here. The Parliamentary Secretary has given us the minimum amount of information upon a subject of vital 674 importance to the country at the present time, and I desire to put a series of questions to him in the hope that he will reply to them. I should like to know what proportion, if any, of this extra expenditure is due to the activities of Sir Auckland Geddes. Sir Auckland Geddes has been making speeches about the necessity of food storage. He says that working-class housekeepers should provide food defence by storing up sardines, pilchards and bottles of water. It does not apparently strike him that if we are to store tinned fish we might as well store tinned herring, which is a native product and would find useful employment for our own people, not only the fishermen but the men in the tinworks of Wales, and girls in packing. I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say in the way of amplification of these magnificent proposals, made with authority by a man who was Food Controller in the last War, and who has been given high position by this Government. It fills us with grave disquiet when a man who is to be responsible for the feeding of our people in a state of emergency should have the effrontery to make proposals of this nature.
I propose to say nothing about the working class filling their baths and storing water, but I would point out that in many working-class homes they have no baths which they could fill with water. To fill bottles with water, strikes me as ludicrous. What many of these people need are guarantees against shortage of food. There are millions of people in the country at the present time who are not 24 hours away from famine, and have no surety of food over the week-end. We want to know what provision is being made to store food for these people in case of a grave emergency, with consequent dislocation of transport and the abandonment of the ordinary methods of supply and distribution of food. What is being done? All that we have been told is that they must store pilchards, sardines and bottles of water.

§ The Chairman
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and he must not go into general questions not covered by the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Johnston
May I, with respect, point out that the reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary for this £9,000 675 was that part of it was due to additional charges under the Commodities (Reserves) Act?

§ The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman must remember that it is an addition.

§ Mr. Johnston
I am holding on to the £9,000 and the part of that sum which arises from the activities of Sir Auckland Geddes, who has been making proposals about the storing of sardines, pilchards and bottles of water as the food defence of our people in the event of a dislocation of supplies. I am afraid that I should be called to order if I referred to hot water bottles. We are entitled to some explanation of this matter from the Parliamentary-Secretary. I should like also to be given some information about the inspectorate. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there would be a small increase in the inspectorate. I suppose the inspectorate acts as the watch-dogs of present-day distribution.

§ Mr. Cross
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Johnston
What? Are there no inspectors of present-day distribution and allocation of supplies? If not, that is amazing. We are to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people, children particularly, from densely populated areas, and they are to be taken into sparsely populated areas. Is any provision being made for food supplies in these sparsely populated areas?

§ Mr. Cross
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Johnston
There is. Then if provision is being made there must be an inspectorate, and I should like to know whether they supply regular reports and whether those reports are available. Will they be made available in the Library? Is this House to be given information and guarantees, so that we can discuss the matter fully and intelligently and may know that our constituents are not to be taken from hard-pressed industrial areas and sent into sparsely populated areas without adequate provision of food? Lastly, I should like to know whether the Government consider that the staff of 138 clerks, typists and the rest of them who are to manage the food defence work and the reserve food supply for 40,000,000 of people, is sufficient. That is a question to which we ought to have 676 an answer. Are these 138 persons, including persons in the Supplementary Estimate, sufficient in the opinion of the Government to ensure that there will be an adequate food reserve for all the people in these islands? If the Government think so they are capable of performing miracles. If they are not sufficient, then an even more serious question arises than that which caused so much apprehension in the House in regard to aircraft. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the £9,000 extra for which he asks will suffice? If he cannot assure us on that point, it is time the House of Commons showed its disapproval of Votes of this kind and took drastic steps to ensure that our people will have adequate food supplies and reserves in the event of a serious emergency.

§ Mr. J. Morgan
I want to ask a question to clear up an item in the accounts—the contribution of the Argentine Government towards the cost of the inquiry that was set up. I should like to know the proportion this is to the total cost. This inquiry was rendered abortive by six of the leading meat firms in this country, and I should like to know what amount this House would have been called upon to meet if the inquiry had been effective. These six firms refused to disclose their books——

§ The Chairman
Is the hon. Member referring to Appropriations-in-Aid?

§ Mr. Morgan
Yes. I am submitting that the Appropriations-in-Aid might not have been so great if the business of this committee had been conducted in a more economical manner.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member, perhaps, was not in the House at an earlier stage of the proceedings. He is a comparatively new Member, and perhaps does not realise that Appropriations-in-Aid are matters on which very little discussion is permissible. No questions of policy can be discussed on Appropriations-in-Aid.

§ Mr. Morgan
I submit to your Ruling but I was asking for information on a certain point. I was wondering to what extent the amount had been affected by the item referred to in the account.

§ Mr. Tomlinson
This is a Supplementary Estimate including certain services arising 677 out of the War. The question I want to ask is: which war? All we have heard about is the war that is coming.

§ Mr. Cross
The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) surprised me very much by his questions about the speeches made by Sir Auckland Geddes. I am afraid I have not read the speeches, and, at all events, Sir Auckland Geddes is not connected with the Board of Trade. He is an adviser to the Lord Privy Seal, and his speeches are made on his own responsibility.

§ Mr. Johnston
Does that mean that the Government approve of his speeches?

§ Mr. Cross
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made some reference at Question Time in the House some weeks ago to the accumulation by householders of certain small reserves of food, and I do not think that that is a policy which the right hon. Member opposite is questioning at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman is thinking of a different thing altogether, and I must decline to say anything on the matter at this moment.

§ Mr. Lathan
Is it not a fact that the President of the Board of Trade approved the statements made by Sir Auckland Geddes?

§ Mr. Cross
My right hon. Friend saw no objection to the accumulation by a householder in peace time of a small reserve of suitable foodstuffs, equivalent to about one week's normal requirements. I do not want to read the whole of his statement, but he did suggest that the accumulation of reserves on this scale would be of some advantage to the country in the event of any serious emergency. The right hon. Member has referred to canned herring and desired the Food Defence Department to add them to their food supplies. He will realise as well as anyone that the purpose of this Vote is not to stimulate any particular market, and he will forgive me if I suspect that he is trying to help the herring market.

§ Mr. Westwood
It is a red herring.

§ Mr. Cross
Whether it is a red herring or not, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be most improper for me or any representative of the De- 678 partment to say that the Government intended to purchase any particular product. But there is one difficulty in connection with herring. There is, obviously, a limitation on the quantity you can put into storage, for this reason, that the demand for canned herring is at any time very limited. In peace time it would be impossible to turn over a very large store. Your storage would have to be limited by the quantities which could be turned over, that is, by the quantities normally consumed. At the same time, I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that this; suggestion will be borne in mind.

§ Mr. E. J. Williams
Could not adequate storage be found if the unemployed were advanced a pound or two in order to purchase these things?

§ Mr. Cross
The only possible way to do this is on the basis of people making their own provision. Clearly, you cannot advance money to people to acquire stores because you cannot be certain that when the emergency arose the stores would be there.

§ Mr. R. J. Taylor
Does the Parliamentary Secretary imply that if the unemployed were advanced a certain sum of money to buy tinned herring for storage their need for food at the moment would be such that they would not provide the storage?

§ Mr. Cross
I am not saying that, but I am laying down the principle that when the Government are employing public money for the purpose of acquiring stores these stores should remain under the control of the Government. The right hon. Member for West Stirling said something on the subject of evacuees, if I may use that horrid term of modern jargon. Plans are being framed to deal with the problems which will arise in connection with these persons, and one aspect is the provision of emergency rations. For this purpose, during the crisis in September last, the Department acquired some reserves of canned meat, tinned milk, and biscuits. That was done under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act. At the same time, large: quantities of foodstuffs were voluntarily taken to the outskirts of London and to outlying parts by wholesalers who, it is worth mentioning, undertook the added transport, added credit risks, and added costs of one sort and 679 another the moment they were asked to do so, and without any remuneration or compensation. I think the Committee would wish to record their gratitude to these people.
The right hon. Gentleman also questioned whether these 138 persons are a suitable or adequate body to control the whole of the foodstuffs of forty million persons in time of emergency. It seems to me that he has to some extent misconceived the function of these 138 persons. Their general task is to make plans which, in the event of an emergency, the Government of the day could, at their discretion at that time, put into operation. The formulation of those plans—it is only a planning task, except to the extent that the Essential Commodities Reserves Act is being acted on—is an immense task involving a great mass of details, but when the plans are completed, the officers who are now concerned with making them will be free to lay down their task and, so to speak, put the plans in the hands of caretakers, who will have the business of turning over the stocks that have been acquired and keeping the distribution plans and so on up to date. I put the matter in that way in order better to convey to the right hon. Gentleman the nature of the task which these persons have to undertake. It would not by any means rest upon their shoulders alone to attend to the distribution of foodstuffs in time of war, and a far wider organisation would have to be called into being under plans now being made.

§ Mr. Johnston
Will the reports of the inspectorate be placed in the Library of the House?

§ Mr. Cross
The inspectorate is a very small body, costing approximately £500, which has the duty of inspecting the storage of ration books only, some tens of millions of which are stored in some 54 different warehouses up and down the country. It is necessary to see that they are in proper order so that the rationing scheme might be brought in easily.

§ Mr. Johnston
Surely, more than ration books are being inspected? On the hon. Gentleman's own showing, the Department purchased reserve stocks of canned meat, tinned milk and biscuits. Surely, these must be inspected, and there must be available reports on whether 680 the stocks are in the appropriate areas, and the amounts. Cannot we be reassured, by reports or otherwise, that there is adequate action on the part of the Government, and therefore, cannot the reports of the inspectorate be made available?

§ Mr. Cross
I am not sure to what stocks the right hon. Gentleman is referring. Clearly they must be either stocks of food acquired under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, or stocks in private hands. As far as stocks of food acquired under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act are concerned, of course we know exactly what we have. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants reports on them, and I do not think he desires in the national interest that very full reports should be given as to the precise commodities that we are storing. With regard to food in private hands, we rely on contact with the trade organisations for information on the quantities of food which normally they hold. I cannot see that any question of a report arises under either of those headings.

§ Mr. Johnston
Are we to understand that the Government say that the public of this country is not to be told what reserves of food are prepared under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act?

§ The Chairman
I think the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that this is not the occasion on which to get that information. I can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty in raising any questions on it. The note to the Supplementary Estimate states that: Provision is required to meet the cost of additional staff necessitated by the extension and acceleration of the Department's work. Certainly, this is not the occasion for inquiring into the total amount of stocks.

§ Mr. Johnston
With all respect to you, Sir Dennis, I could appreciate that if we had not been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his original statement, that part of the £9,000 is due to additional costs arising from an extension of operations under the Essential Commodities Reserves Act. Inasmuch as the Parliamentary Secretary declares that part of the £9,000 is due, presumably, to additional storage of foodstuffs, may we not inquire into this?

§ Mr. Cross
In so far as any money is unaccounted for under the Supplementary Estimate which the Committee has already had and on which it has been informed as to how the money has been spent, the unexpended balance concerning which there has been no information is accounted for by turning over arrangements for storage and so on, and not by additional purchases. In any case, there is no information that I could give the right hon. Gentleman on that now.

§ Mr. E. J. Williams
Do the retainers paid to the present food controllers come from the £9,000?

§ Mr. Cross
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Lathan
Part of the explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary gave in his introductory statement had reference to ration cards. Can he give the Committee some indication as to the provisions that have been made with regard to these ration cards and some guidance as to the extent of the provisions that have been made for the storage of food?

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman's questions go very far beyond the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Lathan
Those matters were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his explanatory statement.

§ The Chairman
Even if the Parliamentary Secretary gave information which was not necessary, I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to ask those questions.

§ Mr. Benn
I am sorry that I was not in the Committee when the Parliamentary Secretary began his speech, so that I do not know whether he gave the information for which I am about to ask. The Committee will notice that on page 21 of the Supplementary Estimate, there is Sub-head A.2—"Special Services," under which there is the following note: Additional provision required in respect of the Anglo-American Trade Delegation in view of the unavoidable prolongation of the the negotiations. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary referred in detail to the reason for this. My first difficulty is that I cannot find in the original Estimate any Vote for this purpose. Will the hon. Gentleman clear up this difficulty at once? 682 Where, in the main Estimate, do we find some sum to which this is an additional provision?

§ Mr. Cross
I have already explained that by direction of the Treasury this sum was charged to Sub-head A.2. The original provision was under Sub-head A.3, "Travelling and Incidental Expenses." That is why there is a saving under that sub-head.

§ Mr. Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that technical difficulty. The real interest in this question arises here, because we shall be very strictly within the Rules of Order in inquiring what was the cause of the delay. The provision in the original Estimate under Sub-head A.3 must have been a very small one, because the whole of the Estimate under Sub-head A.3 amounted to only £3,000. Somebody has caused a delay which has tripled the expense of this delegation. It is a very interesting question. We cannot, of course, discuss the general merits of the Anglo-American Trade Treaty, but what we can ask is why the thing was held up from the Autumn of 1937 until November or December of last year? It is relevant to ask that question, because we are faced with a bill three times as great as the original bill owing to this delay, and that the delay did great harm there is no doubt.
This American Trade Treaty was one of the dearest projects in the heart of Mr. Cordell Hull, and he has combined a broad economic outlook with a policy of political appeasement which has meant a very great deal to the world in general. Therefore, to delay that project, in the light of what was happening in the rest of the world, to postpone that improvement in Anglo-American relations which followed the conclusion of the Treaty, was a very serious thing. To put it briefly, the delay was caused because the Government were in the hands of private interests, who would not allow the Treaty to be concluded. Of course the first and main difficulty was the Ottawa Agreements, and I would like to give one or two references to the Committee to show what I mean. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department made a statement in April as follows: I hope this trade agreement will be signed next month. 683 That was reported in the "Times" on 16th April last year, and yet it was not until nearly Christmas that we got the Treaty. What was the cause of the delay? I wish some of the hon. Members who took part in delaying it were present to-night in order to explain. Let us take the first quotation: Trade negotiations with the United States of America. Manufacturers' warning against haste. A warning against the hurried making of a trade, agreement for political reasons has been addressed to the Board of Trade by the National Union of Manufacturers. The second example, which is from the "Times" at the end of last year, is to the effect that somebody could not contemplate without anxiety-changes of tariff policy which would increase the volume of mass-produced American manufactures in Great Britain. Now we can understand why, when the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department said in April that he hoped the agreement would be concluded within a month, this very highly desirable agreement was held up for nine months and why we are now asked to find £9,000 for the cost of the delay. I pass to another extract: The F.B.I."— Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me what those initials stand for.

§ Mr. G. Griffiths
The Federation of British Industries.

§ Mr. Benn
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I will continue. The F.B.I, in November asked the President of the Board of Trade"—

§ The Chairman
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is the source from which he is giving these quotations? He knows quite well that we cannot discuss the original policy of the Anglo-American Treaty. I feel sure, therefore, that he is carefully keeping in order, but I am in some difficulty as to how it is that on this occasion he is so keeping in order.

§ Mr. Benn
I have never been so kindly treated in my life. I am simply dealing with this one point, why we are asked to vote £9,000, which is three times the original Estimate, owing to what is called an unavoidable delay, and the quotations that I am reading—I will not multiply them, although I could—I am reading to show why the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman, expressed in April, that the 684 agreement would be completed within a month were disappointed. I say that these quotations, which are extracts from the "Times," go to show that at every stage, both in this House and outside, pressure was brought to bear by interests upon the Government to delay the completion of the agreement. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not say they turned a deaf ear to these representations, anxieties, and letters. They were the subject of even leading articles in the "Times," which expressed the hope that political considerations would not interfere with what was thought to be a good trade deal. I should have thought that Anglo-American friendship was so important a thing that no private interests ought to be allowed to stand in the way.
Therefore, I only ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what was the unavoidable delay, and I beg him not to say that it was due to the complicated way in which tariffs had to be altered in the United States. We are not voting for expenses incurred in the United States, but for expenses incurred on our side. Let me take the case of motor cars. From one of these quotations, which I have not read, I understand there was a hitch, a delay, because it was proposed in some way to interfere with the tariff on motor cars. It is all very well, and laudable, for Noble Lords to be generous and dispense their millions for public purposes, but how were these millions made? Were they made by tax-farmers under the protection of a tariff which we cannot alter because of their refusal? I wish the Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department would tell us what was the cause of this unavoidable delay, and whether it is not, by and large, true to say that the underlying cause of the delay in this and other matters of economic appeasement is the vested interests which stand behind and command the services of the Government.

§ Mr. Cross
The right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) began by saying that the length of time occupied by the negotiations in Washington was due to the opposition of private industry in this country, and that their opposition was to the Government making concessions, as I understand, upon industrial goods. I want to deny that absolutely and to say that there is no truth in it whatever, from 685 start to finish. The truth is, as he said, that the Federation of British Industries did at one time express apprehension lest there should be widespread reductions in the protection at present afforded to manufactures in this country, and there were certainly people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Sir P. Hannon), who would have preferred the Government not to make a treaty because they believed it was not possible to make one which would be in the national interest on account of the competing nature of the products of the United States and those of our own country. But that was not the view of the Government, and that is the thing that matters.
Very careful preliminary discussions had taken place and had shown to the satisfaction of the Government that there was a real possibility of making a treaty which would be comprehensive and satisfactory to both sides. Those negotiations did take longer than was expected, as we all know, but that had nothing on earth to do—and I cannot emphasise this too much—with private enterprise, with the Federation of British Industries, or with the National Union of Manufacturers, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman referred. The responsibility is the Government's to decide what concessions may be made to another country when they are making a trade agreement. At the same time, I say, quite frankly, that it is right that they should have regard to information which is placed at their disposal by organised industry in this country. That is quite a separate point, but the question whether an agreement should be made, particularly the question of what particular concessions should be made in regard to that agreement, is for the Government alone. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman for a moment to discount the value of the information which was given to the Government by industry. They placed at the disposal of the Government a vast amount of helpful information. Indeed, I do not think I am overstating the case when I say that without their help it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to have concluded this or any other trade agreement.
The time that was taken in completing these negotiations was longer than was anticipated, but I think it was not excessive having regard to the extraordinary 686 complexity of the matters which had to be negotiated. I suppose that there are no two countries in the world whose mutual trade is so extraordinarily complex and whose interests are so conflicting as the United States and ourselves. In addition to that—and let us be frank about it—it is giving away no secret—a good deal of hard bargaining went on, and all that takes time. I am divulging no secret when I say that there was far more difficulty in dealing with the demands of the United States in regard to agricultural products than there was in regard to manufactures. I think that these various facts explain properly the length of time that was occupied, and I hope that the firm denial which I have give to the suggestion that there has been interference by industry in any way, still less that such interference has caused delay, will dispose of that suggestion.

Mr. J. J. Davidson
I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman with regard to American and British trade relations, but I will hasten to say, what I think will be echoed by every Member, that if the trade agreement succeeds in bringing British foreign policy more into line with American ideas of fair play and international decency, it will serve a very useful purpose. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has dealt adequately with the extension and acceleration of the Department's work with regard to food defence plans. I would like an adequate reason for the two words in the reasons given for the increase, "extension" and "acceleration." Does "extension" mean geographical extension of the Department's work? If so, I should like to know how far it is extended by the expenditure of this £9,000. Hon. Members have repeatedly asked the Government to formulate a strong food policy for the nation's defence. Hon. Members op both sides have consistently asked that adequate schemes should be provided. Is this extension a reply to the continued questions and appeals of hon. Members? Scottish Members, in particular have asked that an adequate food policy should be extended into Scotland, and that the best methods of extending the food defence plans would be to give to Scottish people adequate opportunities of producing the food they require.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is now going beyond the subject of this Estimate.

Mr. Davidson
I lack the eloquence of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench in putting forward my point of view, and I desire to keep within the ambit of this discussion and not go against the Rulings of the Chair. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us in plain straightforward language how far this extension applies and whether it means that food depots are being set up.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that that will not do at all. I may help the hon. Member if I suggest to him that he should refer to the original Estimate, which has nothing to do with food depots.

Mr. Davidson
The Estimate says: Provision is required to meet the cost of additional staff necessitated by the extension and acceleration of the Department's work.

§ The Chairman
Perhaps the hon. Member will confine himself to the extension of what is really the Department's work, which he does not seem to realise.

Mr. Davidson
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether the extension of the Department's work means that extra work is being placed upon the Department because of the extension into areas that were not contemplated when the original Estimate was made. I would also like the hon. Gentleman to give a clear exposition of the rate of acceleration which he expects this Estimate to bring about. Does it mean that the staff have to work longer hours or that they have to do their work more speedily? Has there been a speeding-up in the Department, and to what extent has it taken place? Can he assure us that the acceleration is not the kind of acceleration of which we have heard from Ministers of the Service Departments, which has proved to be no real acceleration at all but an acceleration that left us last September as one of the most backward and defenceless nations in the world? I should like to be assured that this acceleration is real and that the money is being spent for a useful purpose, not in placing further burdens on the shoulders of the staff, but in making Ministers and Under-Secretaries take more interest in their work and get to their offices earlier. Does it mean that there is a general acceleration with regard 688 to the Ministers and Under-Secretaries and others who are receiving the plums of office but not doing the work?

§ Mr. A. Jenkins
I gather from what was said by the Minister, in replying to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) that there was no undue interference by the Federation of British Industries in the negotiations.

§ Mr. Cross
No interference whatever.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I gather that the Minister did say that there were consultations.

§ Mr. Cross
Representations.

§ Mr. Jenkins
Very well, call them representations. Whatever they may be called there were some talks, indeed, some pressure was used by the Federation of British Industries in connection with the American Trade Agreement. The Minister was very forceful in resisting the suggestion of any pressure by that body, but he did say, and this is the thing that interests me, that the pressure used by the land-owners or the farming industry was very much greater than that of the Federation of British Industries, and I should like to know to what extent that influence was exerted either by landowners or farmers. Can he give us particulars of what items were under consideration and what form the consultations took? It is of considerable importance to know the extent of those consultations or what pressure was used upon the people responsible for conducting the negotiations on behalf of our Government, and I hope the Minister will make the position very much clearer than he left it after his speech.
I can understand, of course, that any Government negotiating a trade agreement would want to get all the information it possibly could. He has given us a denial that the owners of industries exercised undue influence, because he said there were merely consultations, but he did refer to trouble arising because the interest of the fanning industry in this country was very much greater than that of the other industries, and I should like to have some particulars of what items were under consideration.

§ Sir Geoffrey Ellis
I should like to say a word on this question of representations from industry. I do not belong to any 689 of the associations which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but let us look at this matter as a practical proposition. Do you not require to have representations from the industries concerned in both the United States and this country? Both the employers and the men are concerned in these matters, and have not the industries to be represented when negotiations are taking place? Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman what keen bargainers the United States are. Nobody knows better than he of the influence of American trade and industry behind the representations from their side in negotiations. On our side representations are perfectly justified because the Government have to know the position from the point of view of our industries. It cannot know it from the back of its head or from administrative experience, and must gather the views of industry. The right hon. Gentleman was rather suggesting that the political side of the agreement is so important that we ought to let all these minor considerations as to industry and as to the interests of employers and of workpeople be put on one side. That was the implication of what he said.

§ Mr. Benn
The issue can be put very shortly. We put the public interest before private interest. Those people are there to roll their own logs.

§ Sir G. Ellis
I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman absolutely on that point. I am not pressing the private interests of any particular firm at all. I am pressing the interests of industry in relation to a bargain which is to be made with a foreign nation. In negotiations of this kind no nation insists more upon the letter of the bargain which is entered into. The representatives of the United States would be the last people to say "Do not talk about the commercial side of things. Let us consider the political side of things, because that is going to make such a difference in the future, so let this little commercial side stand down." There are realities in this situation. There is the reality of employment for people in this country, and it is idle to put these other considerations forward and pretend that they have any real effect in the long run.

§ Mr. R. J. Taylor
I agree with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) 690 about the Americans being very keen bargainers. We know that to our cost, because this country has been placed by the National Government in a position such as we should never have expected to see. We have practically defaulted on our debt to America, and when we remember that the present Lord Baldwin, then the——

§ The Chairman
I must ask the hon. Member not to go on unless he has something to say which is within the terms of this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Taylor
I was referring to the keen bargaining terms made by America and the high rate of interest——

§ The Chairman
That subject is not in order upon this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Taylor
Then I will talk about food and this question of £9,000. We were told some time ago of the very great importance of householders getting stores of food equal to a month's or a week's supply.

§ The Chairman
It is quite clear that the question of stores does not come under this Estimate at all.

§ Mr. Taylor
Should I be in order if I were to raise the question of the staff which is necessary in connection with this item of £9,000? Should I be in order in addressing myself to——

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member need not ask me a question of that kind. If he will be careful to keep within order, or try to keep within order, I shall stop him only if he gets out of order.

§ Mr. Taylor
I wish to speak about the additional staff necessitated by the extension and acceleration of the Department's work. It seems to me that a very heavy burden has been placed upon the additional staff, apart from the crisis that we had in September, in connection with the building up of reserves of food by private shopkeepers. They were congratulated upon what they had done in that direction, but it must have meant additional work for the staff, and as there are approximately 250,000 shops in this country and it will be necessary to supervise and keep a more or less correct record of the amount of reserve food there will be a very heavy task for the staff. Is £9,000 an adequate sum, in view of the very important and necessary 691 work which will have to be done in connection with ensuring reserves of food? We are dealing at the moment with the additional staff. If we are to know at any particular time what our food supplies are, will this additional staff be adequate for the purpose? Does this £9,000 represent a sum which will pay fair wages and maintain a reasonable addition to the staff? It seems to me that in the building-up of reserves of food we have now three aspects of the question. There is the Government reserve of food. We have been talking about pilchards and tinned herring and all that kind of thing. That is the Government's reserve, which is the important one. Then let us take the other extreme, for which the additional staff is required.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is really trifling with the Committee and what he is saying is not at all in order on this discussion. I must ask him to treat the Debate seriously.

§ Mr. Taylor
I regret, Sir Dennis, that you should think that I am trifling with the Committee, because this is a very important matter and I am dealing with it in a very serious way. That we should know the reserve of food which we have in this country at any time is a matter of great national importance.

§ The Chairman
I have told the hon. Member already that that is not in order on this Vote.

§ Mr. McEntee
I wish to come back to the last statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Frankly, I was extremely disappointed with it. Let me draw his attention to what this £9,000 is for, and what it means to me, and no doubt to many thousands of people in this country. There was an original Estimate in connection with the negotiations with the United States of, I think, £3,200 and we are now faced with an Estimate of nearly three times that amount. We were told that the increase was due to the fact that the meetings and discussions were unavoidably prolonged and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) quite rightly asked for some explanation of that prolongation. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary, and while he told us a number 692 of things, he did not give a single reason for this Vote. Will he tell us now what were the causes of this increase? It has been suggested from this side that one cause was the fact that certain organisations, such as the Federation of British Industries, had made "representations"—to use the Parliamentary Secretary's own word—to the Government. It may be right that representations should be made by a body of interested persons to the Government on a matter affecting their own industry. That may be perfectly legitimate, but the representations which were made in this case must have been extraordinary if they delayed the proceedings to such an extent that this Estimate had to be multiplied by three.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, I thought of the representations made by the agricultural industry which compelled the Government to change completely their agricultural policy. I cannot help feeling that the representations made by the Federation of British Industries and other organisations compelled the Government in this case to change their policy, thus causing the prolongation of these negotiations which has led to the increased Estimate. It is not enough to say that the negotiations took longer than the Government contemplated. Is not that an admission of the failure of the Government to appreciate the task which they were undertaking and to estimate with reasonable accuracy the cost of the proceedings? I come back to what was said about Sir Auckland Geddes and his public statements—whether they were lectures or not I do not know—regarding the storage of food. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) mentioned certain other kinds of fish besides those referred to by Sir Auckland Geddes. He mentioned herring and I was rather struck by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that in normal peace time the demand for canned herring is so small that it is questionable whether we should seriously consider the provision of canned herring, instead of pilchards and sardines.

§ The Chairman
I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that a discussion on what was said by Sir Auckland Geddes does not arise on this Vote at all, nor does the question of the demand for herring or other fish.

§ Mr. McEntee
I am sorry if I have been led astray by the Parliamentary Secretary, because that was a matter which he discussed.

§ The Chairman
I think that since then I have made the matter clear, and that we now understand where we are.

§ Mr. McEntee
The hon. Gentleman, in any case, said he would make further inquiries, and that is really all I was about to ask him to do, but I hope he will give some more reasonable explanation of this £9,000 than has been offered up to now.

§ Mr. Ede
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give us the reasons why this prolongation of the negotiation was found unavoidable. I listened carefully to the defence which was put up for the Government by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) and it seemed to me that his was a far more plausible explanation than that offered by the Parliamentary Secretary. It seemed to me that it was because of the advice given by the hon. Member——

§ Sir G. Ellis
Neither my hon. Friends nor I gave any advice at all.

§ Mr. Ede
I do not mean advice while the negotiations were going on. I was referring to this evening's proceedings, perhaps "advice" was not the right word to use. I was referring to the explanation tendered by the hon. Member as to the importance of considering representation put forward, as I understand it, in a purely academic sense by the Federation of British Industries and considered in an equally academic sense by the Government. These matters, we understand, were conducted on a very high and abstract plane with no reference to balance sheets, tariffs or anything of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ethical."] No, I would not say ethical.

§ The Chairman
I hope the hon. Member will keep to the subject-matter of the discussion, and will not be tempted to wander away from it.

§ Mr. Ede
I hope my hon. Friend will not tempt me again. It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Ecclesall put 694 his finger exactly on the spot. If the kind of conversations between the Government and the industries concerned about which he spoke had taken place before the negotiations started, the Government would have been in a much better position for conducting the negotiations. They would not have been subjected to two fires, one from the obstinate bargainers from America and the other from these people on their own side who were engaged in making these representations to them. These negotiations appear to have been under-estimated, as far as their length is concerned, to the tune of about 300 per cent. The original Estimate was £3,280 and the actual cost was an additional £9,000, clearly indicating that the negotiations took nearly four times as long as was originally anticipated. They were prolonged. That we can accept, but the Government's excuse is that they were unavoidably prolonged. On the showing of the hon. Member for Ecclesall this delay could have been avoided and the Government's negotiations could have been conducted with greater ease if these representations that were made during the course of the negotiations had taken place between the Government and the various interests in this country before they started seeing anyone from America.