§ VISCOUNT HARDINGE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—
§ 1. How many consignments of foreign hops, and of how many hundredweights each consignment consisted, have been stopped at British ports since the prohibition of the im- 290 portation of foreign hops, and have been put into bond under Government direction. Who were the consignors and who were the consignees of each such consignment. Have any consignments arrived recently, and, if so, to whom they were consigned and have they been landed. If they have been landed, where are they now stored, and subject to what conditions.
§ 2. If any foreign hops have lately been shipped to British ports consigned to any person or persons who were aware of the prohibition of foreign hops being imported. If so, can the contravention of the Proclamation be other than wilful, and therefore liable to seizure; and if so, will these hops be seized.
§
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my reason for addressing the two Questions which stand in my name to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture is the fact that during the previous debate on hops he, in the opinion of the hop-growers of Kent, evaded the question altogether. With your Lordships' permission I will read the question again. I asked—
If any foreign hops have recently been shipped to any British port or ports, although the importation of such hops is prohibited; if so, have they been landed, and what has become of them.
The reply of the noble Lord was—
The prohibition is against the importation of any hops, and that stands.
He then proceeded to describe how the Controller dealt with the brewers and the growers. I trust he will forgive me for saying that that was hardly an answer to my question—a question which is regarded as of infinite importance to the hop industry—for this reason, that they have been led to understand, and I believe rightly, that on the first few days of the prohibition a consignment of hops was seized and put into bond with the undertaking that these hops would not be released except on their going back to their place of origin. Ultimately the hops were released, and landed I believe on these shores, and if he can tell us who bad those hops it would be very good information for the importers in this country.
§ During the recent debate the noble Lord told us that he considered that the Hop Controller had handled this hop 291 question in a very admirable manner. I can assure the noble Lord that the growers have the greatest confidence in the Hop Controller, and find it difficult, therefore, to understand how it was that he recommended the importation of hops to brewers who held reserves before the acreage of hops had been reconstructed up to that of 1914. If, however, the noble Lord can assure us that that assumption was not justified, but that it is the intention of the Government to grant licences under certain conditions, then I repeat what I said on another occasion—namely, that it will be grossly unfair to the hop-growers of this country, and must inevitably spell disaster to this greatest of all agricultural industries, the hop industry, while on the other hand a distinct victory will have been gained by the foreign growers, more especially those emanating from the Pacific Coast.
§
Some of your Lordships may ask what are the views and wishes of the brewers on this question. I believe I am right in saying that they are keenly interested in seeing the 1914 hop acreage reinstated. In fact, I have been informed that the Brewers Society passed a resolution insisting that restrictions shall be imposed upon the import of hops till all the English growers have had a fair opportunity of reconstruction. I would like to draw attention to another point which in the recent debate was brought forward and which the hop-growers of Kent regard as a real danger spot disclosed by the noble Lord's speech. It was in answer to my noble friend Lord Harris, who asked who were the brewers who were to be allowed to import hops. The answer was this—
Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import; and those brewers who have stocks will be allowed to import provided they do not add to their quantity in reserve or in stock.
I sincerely trust, my Lords, that that decision will not be regarded as final, because as long as there are sufficient hops for producing the quota of beer allowed by the Government I fail to understand why there should be any licence to import hops at all. If, however, brewers have a genuine fear of any shortage, I would suggest this—let the brewers who have ample supplies supply either hops or beer to those who have a shortage. This levelling of stocks would be the only honest policy as between the brewer and the grower. To issue permits for individual requirements would be grossly unfair to the home growers.
§ Let us look upon this question from another point of view. I would like to ask the noble Lord, if there is really a shortage of hops, Why should we deal with the Americans? Why should not we deal with our own Colonies, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? We have been told during the last General Election that there was to be Imperial Preference. Well, my Lords, if we can produce as much beer as is required within our Empire why go outside our borders? We were told, too, during the last Election, that we were to protect key industries. I fail to understand what key industries are, but it appears to me that if there is one which wants protection it is the key industry—namely, agriculture. In conclusion I trust that the noble Lord will reply to these Questions and thereby relieve a great deal of suspicion which now exists, and I am sure he will be the first to realise that the growers are entitled to some definite assurance.
LORD HARRISMy Lords, I should like to supplement what has been said as regards an omission in the previous reply which the noble Lord gave a little time ago to my question as to the permission to brewers to import hops, provided, as I understand, they do not acquire by that process stocks larger than they originally had. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will explain to your Lordships whether brewers are in any way limited with regards to the proportion of beer that they may brew. That is to say, may a brewer who has sufficient hops use the whole of his stock of hops, if there is a sufficient demand for his beer? Is he unlimited as to the amount of beer he may put out, if he has a sufficient stock of hops? If so, it seems to me rather unfair to the smaller brewers, who have not got a sufficient stock of hops, that the others should be allowed to import and that the stock of hops should not first of all be distributed where it is wanted in this country. I quite understand the reason why it is necessary to import some hops this year, because, as my noble friend must know, we cannot get back to the 1914 acreage until, I suppose, 1920 or even 1921. They have to be planted this year even if the setts are ready, but I do not understand, I confess, why this large importation (as it may be) of foreign hops should be allowed this year in the case of brewers who have already got large stocks and 293 who may use them up, and who, therefore, will be able to replace thorn with very considerable stocks against future use when English hops might be coming in.
§ LORD ERNLEMy Lords, I am afraid my difficulty lies in the fact that I do not represent the Board of Trade, which is really concerned with the question of importation to which the noble Viscount alluded, and I do not control, as President of the Board of Agriculture, the amount of beer which is allowed in this country; so that, though I answered on the last occasion as President of the Board, I was unable to answer that part of the noble Viscount's Question which asked whether certain imports have been made. If I may be allowed I should like to say that the principle we have adopted is this. Brewers who have not sufficient hops to brew their apportionment of beer between now and next year's crop will be allowed, on proving their shortage, to import sufficient to brew their beer up to that time, and not more. The governing words of my answer to the noble Lord who spoke last are these—
Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import.But there are different kinds of shortness. A man may have a considerable quantity of old hops in stock but he may want to import a sufficient quantity of fresh hops in order to be able to use up a portion of those old hops. That is the meaning of my answer, which I confess, when I read it, was open to misconstruction. The governing words are: "Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import. "That, I think, ought to reassure the growers in Kent and elsewhere.Then, if I may pass on to the other point that was raised—and I am answering for the Board of Trade over this particular point—since the importation of hops was prohibited there have been two cases in which foreign hops have reached this country. In the one case, which was the case of a consignment of 200 bales, the consignment to this country was in transit to France, and that consignment has since proceeded on its way to France and it is no longer in this country. The other case is one in which foreign hops were consigned to this country. That consignment consisted of about 821 bales, weighing 70 tons, and came from the United States. That consignment was at once seized. It is held in bond to the Department of Import 294 Restrictions at St. Katharine's docks and cannot be released from bond except with the consent of the Department of Import Restrictions and after consultation with the Hop Controller.
Therefore, though these hops are in this country they are in bond held there to the Department of Import Restrictions, subject, as to removal, to the consent of that Department, and that consent is only given after consultation with the Hop Controller. The second part of the Question refers to the question whether there was a wilful contravention of the Proclamation. Clearly, I think, those who consigned the hops to this country were aware of the prohibition. Therefore, the contravention of the Proclamation could be nothing else but wilful, and the hops are liable to seizure and they have, in fact, been seized. I do not know whether that answer is completely satisfactory to the noble Viscount, but if I can in any way amplify it I shall be very glad to do so.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEI should like to ask the noble Lord if there is any firm to whom these hops have been consigned and if they have received them?
§ LORD ERNLENo firm has received them. They have never passed out of the hands of the Import Restrictions Department at St. Katharine's docks.