HC Deb 23 May 1957 vol 570 cc1541-7

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Willey

We should not allow the Clause to go by without making some inquiries. I am not completely satisfied that the Clause is necessary. Its purpose is to continue the present duties on hops, which hitherto have been continued for a temporary period.

As the Clause refers to the origin of the duties, I want to remind the Committee of the circumstances in which they were first imposed. I remind my hon. Friends that here was a Division upon the proposal made by the Government. The Government proposed that we should impose the duties for a period of four years. The Opposition divided against that on the ground that it was unnecessary to impose the duties for a period longer than a year.

It was regarded as a temporary measure, as I am sure the Chancellor will appreciate, because the duties were imposed for a specific purpose. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said: The essence of control is that it is temporary and is to continue only for such time as the hop farmers would be able to re-establish the hop gardens which they had grubbed for patriotic reasons during the War. The then Minister of Agriculture expressed himself less graphically. He said: It is designed in the interests of growers to enable them to resume the position they occupied before the war. The war of which they were speaking was, of course, the 1914–18 war. We all know that it upset hop-growing in this country.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

It made it.

Mr.Willey

The hon. Member can join our discussion later. It was understood at the time, in 1925, that the protection was needed because the hop industry had been upset by the 1914–18 war. It was not disputed that this was a measure to aid the hop growers, but whereas the Government said that they envisaged a four-year period, the Opposition then thought that a one-year period was sufficient.

The other reason which the Opposition gave was for opposing the imposition of these duties for four years was, again to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland: The Government can adopt more effective measures than this miserable duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1925; Vol. 184, c. 2158–9.] That has become a matter which is no longer one of contention because effective steps were subsequently taken to assist the hop growers. The first marketing scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, was the Hop Marketing Scheme, 1932. I imagine that it is commonly assumed that the hop marketing scheme has been a great success. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would suggest the introduction of free enter prise to the hop-growing industry. I think that this industry —

Mr. Nabarro

The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily failing in his researches in the matter. He has evidently neglected to refer to the important debates we had on this topic on 19th May, 1953, when, as the representative in this House of the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, I made my position perfectly clear in this context.

Mr. Willey

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make it clear again. Of course, I am fully aware of that discussion.

We are dealing with the duty, and I want to make clear the circumstances in which the duty was first imposed and the steps which have been taken subsequently. With apparently the exception of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, everyone is agreed that the hop marketing scheme has aided the industry and the controls which are exercised have benefited the industry. It is in these circumstances that I ask whether the Government are convinced that the continuance of this duty is really necessary. This protection is obviously worth far less than in 1925. It is not an ad valorum protection. If this is justified on the grounds that the conditions are the same notwithstanding the creation of the Hop Marketing Board, I should have thought that there would have been an argument for substituting he present provisions by an ad valorum duty. But the Chancellor does not do hat, and it seems to me that this is an example of the endemic laziness within the Treasury. They are merely wishing to avoid the review of the duty.

Mr. Hale

I hope that before he concludes my hon. Friend will say something about the public interest in this matter, and when I refer to the public interest I do not mean the public houses but the general public. This beastly substance was introduced into British beer in the eighteenth century to turn it into modern deer.

Mr. Willey

I am happy to note that my hon. Friend evidently desires to take part in the debate—

Mr. Hale

I do not desire to engage in anything.

Mr. Willey

—but I wish to make my own speech in my own way.

This duty if it is to be justified is to be justified as being in the interests and necessary for the protection of the industry. The first point I wish to put to the Chancellor is a simple one. How can the duty remaining at the same rate as in 1925 now be of any real protection to the hop industry, and is it a fact that the Chancellor is doing this because it is the easiest course for him to make permanent a duty which is no longer serving any real purpose?

I put these three further points to the Chancellor. Will he give us the figures for the import of hops over recent years. What are the figures of the quantities of hops that we have imported over the past few years and the value? Has the Chancellor borne in mind the fact that if this protection is necessary to the interests of the hop-growing industry, then, on the face of it, it seems inadequate? Is it a fact that over the past few years we have had a considerable export trade in hops running to about £1½ million in value? What are the views of the Chancellor on the export trade in hops? Does he regard it as a valuable trade that we should encourage? If so, does he not think that the continuing of a protective measure which is not serving any real purpose is the sort of factor which will adversely affect our trade?

The Chancellor is the chairman of a working party which is discussing the vexed question of agriculture in the Free Trade Area. There are all sorts of rumours about that, and I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman about them tonight. For instance, there are rumours about what may be done with regard to wine. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that in the context of these discussions he may not be helped if he proposes to make permanent a measure which is unnecessary.

I should like to know whether the Chancellor considered these matters and weighed their importance in the balance before introducing the Clause, or whether the Clause has just slipped in because a lazy bureaucracy has taken the easiest course of making permanent something which it is not justifiable to make permanent.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro

I am sure there is no lazy bureaucracy associated with my right hon. Friend's Measure. I rise at this late hour only for a moment to defend as vigorously as I am able the very constructive proposal contained in the Clause. It is a matter of considerable interest to my constituency. Large acreages of western Worcestershire are devoted to hops, and mine is the second largest hop-growing constituency in the country, the largest being in Kent.

In 1925 a protective duty was introduced for hops. In the terms of the statute of that year, it was renewable every four years. It has been renewed on no fewer than seven occasions up to and including 1953. In 1953 the Socialist Opposition moved against the proposal to renew for four years, and suggested in an Amendment that the period should be reduced to one year. They were defeated by the narrow margin of ten votes. It is significant that the Amendment of 19th May, 1953, was moved by a Socialist Opposition Member, notorious for his antipathy towards the brewers, the then Member of Parliament for Horn-church, Mr. Geoffrey Bing.

All of us who know anything of the activities of the hop growers recognise that the Hop Marketing Board, created in 1932 as the first attempt at organised marketing under a statute of the previous year, was a means of assuring constructive, good and orderly marketing for the products of this important industry. It should not in any way be associated with the measure of protection against continental hops which it was thought in 1925 that our hop growing industry ought, because of its depressed state, to be given by means of a proper tariff. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the Committee have ever quarrelled with the principle of the tariff, but only, as in the case of 1953, with the duration of the period of renewal.

Today we seek in the Clause to make the tariff permanent. It is a measure which will give long-term security to an important industry, one which in the terms of the Anglo-American Productivity Report on hops, published several years ago, is generally acclaimed as being one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, among the hop growing industries of the world; and we are not the only beer-drinking nation in the world, though we like our beer warmer and generally stronger in gravity than many of our foreign competitors. I hope the Committee will give an enthusiastic welcome to the permanent protection to the hops industry which is suggested in the Clause.

There is one point about the future of the duty which was touched upon lightly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). I should like to know whether we may be quite sure that there will be no alteration of the tariff in the event of the European Common Market coming to fruition. I think there can be no alteration, because in col. 1890 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th May, 1953, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to hops as an agricultural product. So long as my right hon. Friend is in a position to confirm that hops are an agricultural product and would, therefore, be excluded from the arrangements with respect to the European Common Market and any agreements that we make with Western European countries under it, I think all hon. Members in the Committee may rest assured that a permanent duty and degree of protection will be given to this very important industry, important to my constituency. and also supremely important to the British way of life, the British character and the distinctive taste and strength of British ales.

Mr. Powell

This short debate has at any rate produced one novelty, and that is the attachment of a very unusual adjective to the Treasury. One is used to it being described as "flint-hearted," "stony," and so on, but it is unusual and refreshing to hear it described merely as "lazy." The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out that the context of this duty has completely changed since it was first imposed in 1925. Indeed, the very fact that it has been renewed every four years from that time to this is evidence of the entirely different purpose which it has come to serve over the years since then.

That change of purpose is associated with an entire change in the legislative treatment of the agricultural industry, and certainly dates, so far as hop growing is concerned, as far back as the establishment of the Hop Marketing Board in 1932. The reasons for renewing and making this duty permanent today are the same as those for renewing it under the party opposite in 1949 and under the present Government in 1953. The duty performs a useful function in its present form, and neither the Hop Marketing Board nor the brewing industry have made representations for it to be increased or reduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked what would be its position in relation to the European Free Trade Area. I can assure him that statements referring to agricultural products most certainly cover the hop.

Mr. Nabarro

I am much obliged.

Mr. Willey

I am also obliged to the Financial Secretary for his reply, though I am still not entirely satisfied, because the absence of representations from both sides of the industry would seem to indicate that the duty is not playing an effective part, because it is obviously of far less value as the monetary value of the duty has declined. My main concern was that this may aggravate our export trade, but the Financial Secretary has not replied to this. I hope he will, at any rate, bear this in mind and see that the export trade be builtup and not prejudiced. While expressing my appreciation to the Financial Secretary for his reply, notwithstanding the fact that he is making permanent the provisions, I hope he will keep the matter under review.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.