§ LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the state of the hop industry, and to ask His Majesty's Government what assistance they propose to render it. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject has already received some publicity in the shape of two articles in The Times and correspondence, but I think it is of sufficient importance also to have publicity in Parliament, and that is why I have taken the liberty of calling attention to it. During the war hop growers were ordered to cut down their acreage by 50 per cent. This they did: I think their acreage was reduced from something over 30,000 acres to about 15,000 acres, and the, loss in some cases was extremely heavy. It was not merely a matter of giving up cultivation which had absorbed a large amount of manure and of established vegetable plant, but it also meant the scrapping of plant in the shape of poles and wires on which the hops grow. In some cases the poles and wires were allowed to stand, but the cultivation was given up and a kind of catch crop was grown in between the rows. No compensation was given for that which was a distinct loss to the hop-growing community, but it was suggested that when the war was over the growers might expect some sympathy, some material sympathy, in the arrangements that would be made for the re-establishment of the industry.
76§ Hop control was instituted in 1917. In 1919 the brewers petitioned the Government for control for a further five years, and the growers agreed to do their best to reinstate their acreage to the pre-war total—namely, about 36,000 acres. They have replanted already up to about 26,000 acres, and there is no doubt that there would have been a further increase had it not been for the check imposed on the industry this year. What has happened? There have been very large importations of foreign hops. At the same time the consumption of beer has been largely reduced owing to the high price of beer consequent on the Duty, and at the present moment the Controller, who is governed by an Act of Parliament, has suddenly intimated to the growers that he is unable to take over more than two-thirds of the crop they have grown. At the present moment he has only taken over one-third of the crop: he holds out some hope that he may be able to take another third, possibly in May, but that is doubtful, and I understand that he holds out no hope so far as the last third is concerned.
§ I am not exaggerating when I say that some of the growers are unable to pay their wages bill. They are really destitute through no fault of their own. After having been encouraged by the Government to increase their cultivation, encouraged, in fact, by the words of the Act of Parliament, they are now penalised, again under the Act, if they attempt to sell the balance of their crop to any one but the Controller, who has told them that for the present he cannot take more than one-third of the crop, he may be able to take over two-thirds, but that he is not hopeful of being able to take over the whole of the crop.
§ I have referred to the large importation of foreign hops. In two years, in 1920–1921 I believe, the Controller allowed to be imported 679,000 cwts. of foreign hops, which is 100,000 cwts. more than the two largest importations of any two years since 1875. In 1922, or rather from the previous autumn up to last autumn, the hop growers spent from £100 to £150 per acre in obtaining the crop. They have only received one-third of it, and now nearly six months after they are actually short of their liquid farming capital. They cannot meet their bills, they cannot pay their wages, and no remedy is suggested. The Controller cannot offer any 77 remedy. He says he is overloaded with hops and cannot pay the growers for what they have grown. He has intimated—indeed, the Government I think have intimated directly to the growers—that they had better scrap 25 per cent. of their present growth because next: year the Controller will not be able to take over the estimated crop of next year.
§
Let me read you a description of the powers of the Controller. He is governed by an Act of Parliament. I have not the Act itself here, but I have the Bill which was introduced in 1920 and became an Act that year. These are the words in the Bill:
The Food Controller shall during the continuance of his office continue to have and exercise any powers in relation to hops which, at the time of -the passing of this Act, were exercisable by him, and may by order prohibit or regulate the importation of foreign hops in such manner as may appear to him necessary with a view to assisting the industry of hop growing in the United Kingdom.
The governing words are "with a view to assisting the industry of hop growing in the United Kingdom." He may import subject to the importation being with a view to assisting the industry. Those words were slightly altered in the Act, which, I think, lasted until September, 1922, when it was renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Those are the words, and they come at the commencement of the clause, so that they govern the whole clause.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThere is no difference in the sense.
LORD HARRISNo. The words are—
With a view to assisting the industry of hop growing … he may regulate the importation of foreign hops.Who is going to contend for a moment that the importation of these masses of foreign hops is of assistance to hop growers in England? Nobody can possibly contend that. I want to ask my noble friend below me whether this importation has been legal. I very much doubt if it has. And if that importation has been illegal, what right has the Controller to calculate on this very large pared of foreign hops as hanging over the market? They ought not to be in the country at all, and if they ought not to be in the country, then they can be washed out. In two years a surplusage 78 of hops has been burnt, I assume by order of the Controller. Why not let this surplusage of foreign hops be burnt?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThere wars a great fire in the Borough—that was the reason.
Loan HARRISSo they were burnt by accident. But why not let them be burnt on purpose? If they have entered the country illegally, let them be destroyed. When my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture replies, I want him to tell me the legal position with regard to these foreign hops. I do not see how he can possibly argue that they have been brought in for the assistance of the industry, for it is unquestionable that the Controller now says that he cannot take over the balance of the English crop because, amongst other crops hanging over the market, there is a very large parcel, over 100,000 cwts., I think, of foreign hops.
That is the position, and I submit very respectfully to your Lordships that it is a very unfair position, having regard to the encouragement given to the growers to increase their acreage, and having regard to the very important fact, that these unfortunate growers are actually out of their liquid farming capital, so that they cannot farm. In view of those two important points, I submit that a present remedy is necessary, is permissible, and, in view of the gracious Speech from the Throne, is, I think, what is contemplated. Of course the growers who have suffered so much are looking for help, as do so many suffering industries, from an Import Duty. Supposing that were introduced, it is not going to help them in the present year. The injury to the industry has been done. It actually exists, and a remedy is necessary now if any good is to be done as regards last year's crop. I would welcome anything that would protect the hop industry. My withers are absolutely unwrung on that point. I do not follow the ignis fatuus, as I think it, of Mr. Chamberlain's Fair Trade proposals, but I always make an exception as regards hop-growing.
My argument is that we can grow in England every hop that is wanted by the trade. There is no necessity to go out of the country for them. I know the brewers say that they have always had a certain 79 quantity of foreign hops and that they want foreign hops. Your Lordships ought to take that with a little qualification. There are certain brewers who have quite considerable interests in hop gardens in foreign countries. Naturally they are interested in the importation of foreign hops. Therefore, you have to qualify any such claim as to the necessity for the importation of foreign hops. We can grow every hop that is wanted. I do not grow an acre of hops, and on my small estate there are only two growers of hops. I am hardly interested at all, and have no personal interest whatever. It is a fact, however, that if we were allowed to increase our cultivation to its possible limits we could easily grow all the hops wanted in the country, and very good hops too.
That is a remedy for the future if the Government can see its way to act. But I submit that a present remedy is absolutely essential, and I hope that my noble friend will feel himself justified in bringing this matter before the Minister of Agriculture, and, if possible, in pressing it upon the Cabinet. My suggestion is that the Government should advance sufficient money to the Controller to take over the balance of the crop. I dare say the whole sum might be a matter of £2,000,000, but the Controller already holds out hopes that he will be able to take over a second third of the crop, which would mean about £1,000,000. If he is able to do that, there would remain only about £1,000,000 to advance to him to enable him to take over all the crop. It would not necessarily be money out of pocket. By degrees the Controller would be able to get rid of the balance of the crop, and the taxpayers need not be heavy losers from the action of the Government.
I am not throwing any blame upon anybody. A blunder has been committed, no doubt by inadvertence, and I suggest to the Government that, having held out hopes that they will do something for agriculture, especially in the direction of assistance by advances to farmers, here is their chance. Here is a chance of making an advance to farmers, and of proving by their action the reality of the sympathy they have expressed and the methods by which they hope to evince that sympathy, as revealed in the gracious Speech. Here is a chance to show that they mean what 80 they said in that Speech. In addition, therefore, to calling the attention of Parliament to this very grave grievance, I conclude by asking what His Majesty's Government will do by way of remedy.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)My Lords, before I deal with the actual question that the noble Lord put at the end of his speech, I think I should first of all briefly refer to one or two remarks he made, and also give roughly an outline of what has occurred in regard to hop control, indicating, so far as I can, the sequence of events leading up to what is unfortunately a very grave position for hop growers, a position to which, I can assure your Lordships, the Ministry of Agriculture are fully alive. At the same time I must make it clear that this Government, which came into office only a very short time ago, cannot be. responsible for the position in which hop growers find themselves. Further I than that, I think very small blame can be laid to the account of any Government at all for the present position of the hop industry.
The first point to which I ought to refer is that, in the year 1917, the Government of the day restricted the output of beer to a certain number of barrels. As a consequence of that action, it was, of course, apparent that not nearly so many hops would be required; hop growers were naturally afraid that the brewers would not require hops, while at the same time, as your Lordships were aware, there u as a large demand for increased food production in the country. The natural result was that large numbers of hop gardens disappeared. The first action which the Government took in the matter was a request—not an order—from the Food Production Department, or the Ministry of Agriculture, that the growers should review the position, and that they should grub a certain number of hop gardens. When this was put to them, the hop growers, quite naturally, I think, came together and said: "This will act very unfairly. It is rather hard that A should act in a patriotic manner and grub the whole of his hop gardens, and that B, his next-door neighbour, should grub none." In those circumstances they said—it came to this—"Please turn your request into an order, and let us have it down in 81 black and white, who is to grub his hops and the acreage which is to be grubbed, FO that the loss will fall equally upon all producers."
That was what led to these hops being grubbed by order, and I am mentioning the fact as the matter does not stand on the same footing as orders by the Food Production Department ordering people to plough up grass land. As I have said, in the first instance, the request for an order came from the growers themselves, so that as far as possible all growers should be placed upon an equal footing. As soon as these orders were issued, or very soon after, the Hop Control was set up and a Hop Controller was appointed. The Hop Control was, and is, a Committee which consists of producers of hops, brewers, and, I believe, of merchants and factors. Over this Committee the Hop Controller presides. The Hop Controller, when he takes action, consults his Committee, looks into the circumstances of the brewing trade, and, of course, examines the interests of the hop growers as well. For some years the Hop Control worked excessively well: I believe it worked to the great satisfaction of the hop growers and of the brewers. There were no complaints, and what I wish your Lordships to understand is that, although during the war a great many industries and manufactures were controlled by the Government and had Government officials telling the manufacturers what they were to do and how they should work, as far as the Hop Control was concerned Government influence was absolutely outside it altogether. The hop industry was controlled and managed by the growers of hops and the brewers. That Committee consisted of people who, with no dictation from the Government, wore put there to try to adjust the interests of the growers and users of hops.
That was the position, I think, until 1919, when it was suggested that the Hop Control should be renewed, and it was renewed in 1920 for another five years. That control was renewed at the express desire of both growers and brewers. Everybody, I imagine, who was responsible for the working of this Hop Control Committee believed that the consumption of beer would enormously increase, and that, hop growing would become a remunerative business, because the brewers would want more hops. Naturally, so 82 long as they could get a good price, those who grew hops were anxious to plant their gardens again and increase their crops.
That was the universal idea among brewers and growers, and therefore it was not the Government but the Control Committee and the Hop Controller who were encouraging the further cultivation of hops, and also, at the same time, admitting a, large quantity of foreign hops into this country under licence. Unfortunately, the forecast of the Hop Controller and his Committee has been absolutely falsified. Instead of the consumption of beer steadily increasing it has steadily fallen off, and at the present moment, I believe, only about 18,000,000 standard barrels of beer are consumed against. 36,000,000 barrels before the war; that is to say, the forecast, of the Hop Controller and his Committee has proved to be absolutely wrong, and the consumption of beer in this country has fallen by one half.
People who look at this matter from an outside point of view must see that prima facie it is a, question between the growers and the brewers themselves. They have worked together without control the whole of this time. The brewers at one time were afraid that they were not going to get enough hops, and were all for encouraging the growing of hops and for having more foreign hops brought into the country. Again, there was an understanding that brewers should be allowed to continue their pre-war practice and not alter their style of brewing, but that in order to suit, as they said, the taste of the British public, they should be allowed to put one-third of foreign hops with two-thirds of English-produced hops. I am not an expert in brewing, and I cannot tell you whether that is a sound contention, but I believe it was the basis on which the Hop Control Committee decided and acted, and on which the Hop Controller has acted. That is to say, as far as possible, he used to try to arrange matters so that the brewers should be enabled to use two-thirds of English hops with one-third of foreign hops. I understand that it was upon this ground that the importation of foreign hops was allowed.
As have said, the whole position has arisen owing to what some people may think is an unfortunate decrease in the 83 consumption of beer. The noble Lord has asked me whether the Government would be prepared practically to give an advance straight away to the hop growers for the hops which they have been unable to sell and which the Hop Controller has been unable to take over, owing to the decrease in the demand for hops. I may say at once that it was a distinct understanding, and a Treasury condition, when the Hop Control was renewed by Parliament in 1920—
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERYes, but it was a distinct understanding that there should be no Treasury responsibility, and that it was a matter entirely for the brewers and growers themselves. That is the Act under which they are working at the present moment, and it must be perfectly apparent, therefore, to the noble Lord, that if a sum of money is to be advanced straight away to these growers for the hops which the Controller has been unable to dispose of it would mean Parliamentary sanction and fresh legislation. The noble Lord dissents. Well, it would certainly require Parliamentary sanction. Your Lordships are aware that in His Majesty's gracious Speech reference was made to the granting of credit facilities to farmers, and I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied if I say that I think the proper time to raise this question of facilities for these men to get loans for their unsold hops would be in connection with that Bill.
There have, of course, been other proposals, which, I can assure the House, are receiving the careful attention of the Ministry. If anything is to be done to relieve the situation, apparently the wisest course would be to lengthen the period of control, which would give longer time in order to get rid of these surplus hops, both home and foreign, which are in the hands of the Controller at present. As regards that, I can only say that some of those whom we have consulted do not think that there is any immediate hurry for such action, because, after all, the Hop Control does not come to an end until August 20, 1925; and until we know what the provisions of the Budget will he, and whether there is going to be an improvement in trade and other circumstances, it, is very difficult to 84 tell whether there is likely to be a large increase in the consumption of beer. By the action of Parliament when the Budget is under consideration and the question of the Beer Duty comes up, a large decrease in the consumption of beer might be brought about. On the other hand, if there is a great improvement in trade and the country were more prosperous, the probability is that more beer would be drunk. Then the demand for hops would go up. To a large extent that would alleviate the present difficult situation, and enable the Hop Controller to get rid of some of the hops which are on his hands. Therefore, there are good reasons against making any immediate declaration as to whether the Hop Control should be continued.
On the other hand, I can quite understand that the growers would like to know as soon as possible, so that they may make their plans for the future. Unfortunately, the Hop Controller is at present out of the country, but I consulted the Minister on this subject, and I can assure the noble Lord that as soon as the Hop Controller returns he will confer with him about this matter and come to a decision as to whether there shall be an extension of the period of control.
There is one important matter to which I should like to refer. It has, I think, been slightly misrepresented in some of the articles that have appeared in the papers and in some of the references to it. I refer to the opinion that this is entirely a Government responsibility. I cannot take that view. The whole of this thing from beginning to end has been largely, if not entirely, a matter of agreement between the brewers and the growers of hops, and it seems to me that any future arrangement that may be come to ought to be on the same basis. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the brewers themselves to stop the cultivation of hops in this country. Indeed, it is in their interest to encourage the growth of a large quantity of hops in this country, and it seems desirable that in the future, as in the past, the brewers and the growers should come together. After all, they are working together; their interests in some respects are dissimilar, but in other respects they are similar. It appears to me that the question of Government assistance on a large scale for the hop industry can hardly be 85 considered on a different footing and apart from all those grave questions which concern many other branches of agriculture, which, I am sorry to say, are in nearly as depressed, if not quite as depressed, a state as the hop industry.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERI am not a lawyer, but, as I read that clause of the Act, the Hop Controller was perfectly within his legal rights in admitting these foreign hops.
§ THE EARL OF ANCASTERWell, that is my opinion.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I think the main line of defence offered by my noble friend on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture is most extraordinary. He tells us that the Ministry is not responsible, and therefore no Government has really any responsibility in this matter. I take up that challenge directly, and I think I can show that my noble friend has been completely misinformed. Do you suppose that this control—a most elaborate machine, which has worked this grievous damage to the hop growers of England—evolved itself out of chaos without the interference of a Government Department?
Why, what is the story? I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Ernle is not here. When he came to the Ministry of Agriculture, it was part of the policy of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, to do all he could to increase the production of food in this country, because the submarine menace was becoming serious. Among the very first articles that Lord Ernie tackled in the matter of food production were hops. The Government said quite deliberately: "Bread is more important than beer. We will limit the number of barrels of beer to be brewed, and the acreage so released from hops shall be used to groan food for the people." Up to that time there had been no orders for cultivation, no direct interference with the farmers; it was the first case.
86 Lord Ernie went to the hop growers and said: "I want half your acreage to grow corn or potatoes." The hop farmers, being very patriotic people, said: "Certainly; but it is not enough to ask us. Nine-tenths of us are willing to conform to your request voluntarily, but it would be very unfair if one-tenth of us were able to make great profits at the expense of the rest. We would prefer you to make a compulsory order." Lord Ernie agreed. There was a complete accord between the Ministry and the farmers as to the best thing to be done. The example was set, and when it came to dealing with the ploughing up of grass land, it was the experience over hops cultivation that made it unnecessary to go through the process of requesting voluntary action. It was this precedent that set the whole policy of orders for cultivation. The whole thing was Government action, Government policy, with a view of keeping this country in food during the war.
And then the machinery. The farmers said: "We have done this; we have scrapped plant of a value of £200 an acre. It will cost us an immonse sum of money to reinstate this after the war. What compensation are you going to give us?" Lord Ernie said, in effect "You require compensation. You are making this great sacrifice for national reasons, and you deserve compensation; and the compensation shall be given you by way of control. I, on behalf of the Government, will set up a control that, in its' working, will give you compensation." And the Controller was appointed. He, was selected to control the hop industry and the brewing at the same time, and an Act of Parliament was passed subsequently—because it was done in the first instance under D.O.R.A.—laying it down quite deliberately that the control existed in order to protect the cultivation of hops in England. The whole thing is Government policy from beginning to end.
Then the Hop Controller said: "I am not an expert. You have selected me to do this work; I know nothing about it myself, and I want advice." and an Advisory Committee was appointed, very properly consisting of hop growers, hop users, and other people connected with the trade. Rut the whole responsibility was that of the Controller appointed by the Minister of Agriculture under the 87 powers of D.O.R.A., continued subsequently by Act of Parliament. But the sole responsibility was his and the Committee was merely advisory. Then my noble friend comes down to the House and says: "No Government had any thing to do with it at all." The whole situation has been created by an act of State to preserve the country in time of war, to enable the country to grow food, and it is a little too late in the day to come and tell this House and the hop growers throughout the country that, although the Government are very sorry for them, the Government have really no responsibility in the matter. I am very much surprised that the Minister of Agriculture should set up such a defence at such a time.
Let me say a word about the working of the control. The Controller, so advised, was a most honourable and efficient person. He meant to act perfectly fairly between the conflicting interests of the brewers and the growers; but he failed in his anticipation as to what would be required. His anticipations, formed, no doubt, after consulting his Committee, were erroneous; they were not what Mr. Winston Churchill would call intelligent anticipations. A great blunder was committed which, I think, ought not to have been committed. I do not think there was at that time any such hurry for coining to a decision. Why do I say that? Because when war broke out the brewers already had in stock a very large quantity of hops, though how much I do not know. As the war went on they used up those hops and replaced them by other hops. Therefore, at the fatal moment when the Controller, acting under the advice of his Advisory Committee, let in or gave permission for the introduction of a great quantity of American hops, there were already in the country great stores of hops in the brewers' warehouses.
That question of pre-war hops must not be left out of sight, because it really bears on the present situation. If the brewers had been accustomed to carry such large stocks of hops, why should they not continue to carry them, and allow the English growers of the last season to sell all the hops they could produce under the advice and impulse of the Ministry of Agriculture? I say, directly under the advice and impulse 88 of the Ministry of Agriculture, because all the time the Controller has been in contact with the Minister of Agriculture. I am not prepared to believe that the encouragement that was offered to the hop farmers to replant their acreage, to which publicity was given through the length and breadth of the land, was disapproved of by the Ministry of Agriculture. If the Ministry of Agriculture had disapproved of it, they could have said so at once and have stopped it. But it was said by every voice that was raised to the farmer: "Now that the war is over, replant your grubbed-up acreage." An honourable engagement was entered into between the brewer and the farmer. It was not a one-sided engagement, as one controversialist on the brewers' side has maintained, that the hop farmer alone should replant, his acreage. The brewer undertook to take all the hops that the farmer grew, and the farmer has only stopped replanting his acreage because the brewer has said: "I cannot take any more of your hops." That is the position.
I want to ask this question. If the brewers could carry such a large quantity of hops, why should they not continue to carry them and allow the hops grown in the last season to be consumed? My noble friend has pointed out that the unfortunate farmers who have grown these hops by request are now absolutely short of capital with which to carry on their farms. That will bring me presently to something more important than the difficulty of the farmer. But my noble friend below me said that the Hop Controller acted on the theory that English brewers always required one-third of foreign hops to two-thirds of English hops. I do not believe that they require any such thing, and I have never seen any such statement by the Controller. I have read, I think, everything that he has said on the subject. He is an excellent and skilled controversialist, who defends his action with great sincerity and intelligence, and I have never seen any such statement made by him. He has said that he only allowed the importation of these foreign hops because he thought that there would be a shortage not of foreign hops but of hops in the United Kingdom.
I want to ask a question other than the one I have just asked, which was as to why the brewers should not continue 89 to carry their American hops and allow their English hops to be consumed. If the Minister of Agriculture and my noble friend who so ably assists him will look at the South Eastern Gazette of January 30 they will see a very important statement by Mr. A. G. Luck, which entirely challenges the Hop Controller's calculations. He does not accuse the Hop Controller of any intentional inaccuracy or allege anything against his bona fides; but he absolutely challenges the basis of his calculations and, I think, proves his point. I very much commend that letter and article to the Minister of Agriculture because, if Mr. Luck's statements are correct, the whole of the English crop is now required.
I said just now that the position of the farmers was not the most important thing. The most important thing is the position of the labourers. Is it conceivable that at this moment, when the country is full of unemployment, the Government are going to be allowed to turn off the land into unemployment many of those who are the cream of our agricultural labourers because of a blunder made by a machine set up by a previous Government? I say deliberately that any Government—this Government or the last Government—has a responsibility for the working of a machine set up by Government and endorsed by Parliament for the control of an industry. Are they going to allow the working of that machine to turn away from the land at this moment a very large number of those who are the cream of our agricultural labourers? There is no form of agricultural industry which gives so much employment per acre to the labourer and the labouring population as hop cultivation does.
How can the Government expect the farming community to believe their promises to help agriculture when every case that comes up is turned down? The Government are, pledged to help agriculture in its present agony. They are also pledged not to introduce Protection by anything in the nature of a subsidy. If every case that arises is turned down in the way in which my noble friend has turned this case down, how can the agricultural community believe in the good intentions of the Government? The proposal made by my noble friend is, I think, a perfectly feasible one—that 90 the farmers should have the advantage to enable them to tide over this difficulty. There is another expedient, and that is the continuation of the control. There is a third expedient, and that is a Duty on foreign hops; but I am not going to discuss that now, because the control would have the same effect. It would not give the farmers the cash they require at the present moment, but it would prevent, I believe, what I care for much more, and that is the turning off of the labourer.
If the farmers knew that their difficulties were only temporary, that these hop gardens would be of value to them for some years to come, they would not scrap this important plant. It really is an incredible thing that the same set of men should be asked within six months to scrap half their plant—very expensive and valuable plant—asked to replace it, and then asked or advised again to scrap 25 per cent. of it. What industry can exist under such treatment? And beyond the injustice to the farmer is what I call the tragedy to the agricultural labourer. Therefore I very sincerely hope that what my noble friend has suggested is not the last word of the Government on this subject. I hope that the Government will look at the question with more sympathy and with less desire to discard the responsibility which, I maintain, must be borne.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPMy Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this subject to-night and myself would have a good many points of difference upon it. For instance, we should probably differ as to the relative merits of hops grown in Worcestershire and hops grown in Kent. But at any rate we should agree heartily in the words of condemnation he has used with regard to the result of control upon the industry. I find myself in complete agreement with all that he has said on that point.
I was glad to hear those words of sympathy which he addressed to the hop growers of this country, amongst whom I venture to count myself, for the treatment which they have received, but when His Majesty's Government state to your Lordship's House their fin a] decision upon this question, I hope that they will not think it necessary to treat hops on a different footing from that on which they 91 treat other agricultural produce. After all, there are other forms of agricultural produce even more important to this country than hops, and I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will not put hop growers in a specially favoured position any more than they should treat hops on a different footing from that of any other kind of agricultural produce.
Your Lordships will realise that the question of the Duty, hinted at both by the noble Earl who has just sat down and by the noble Lord—though they said very little about it in the House this afternoon—is very much in the minds of a great many of the hop growers of this country. I think the wiser of them realise the difficulties which His Majesty's Government would encounter were they to try to do anything of the kind. Obviously, a Duty upon hops would ultimately react upon the price of beer, and the price of beer is probably already too high.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThat is not so.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe noble Earl will have an opportunity of arguing that point if he wishes, but at the present time the price of beer is already sufficiently high, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for that reason, is at all likely to consider a Duty on hops as a possible line of policy.
The noble Earl who has just sat down spoke of his great sympathy for the agricultural labourer, and of the effect upon him of depression in the hop industry. All of us, I think, realise that the agricultural labourer to-day is probably the person who is suffering more than any other class connected with the land, but I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the agricultural labourer, whether he is engaged in hop growing or in other agricultural work. No more than want hops to be treated differently do I want a difference made between agricultural labourers who are engaged in growing hops and those who are engaged in other kinds of agricultural work. I do not wish any preferential treatment for one kind of labourer as against another.
After the sympathetic references which were made in His Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne to the position of agriculture, I trust that His Majesty's 92 Government may be able to do something for the agricultural labourer. We realise the extent to which labour is involved in the growing of hops, but I venture to think that during the next year or two, whatever may be the position of the hop industry, it is very unlikely that we shall find any such large displacement of labour as that which the noble Earl seemed to indicate. After all, the hop growers will be obliged to turn their attention to the production of other crops, and in the raising of other crops they may be able to give an equal amount, or nearly an equal amount, of work to the labourer.
The whole position of hops, I think, is affected by a circumstance which has not been referred to in the course of the discussion this afternoon. I remember that 25 or 30 years ago the really important question each year was whether it was a good year for hops, or whether it was not. If it was a bad year for hops prices soared up, and the brewers were obliged to pay whatever price they could persuade the farmers to sell at. Then cold storage was introduced, and from that moment the position of the hop industry has been quite a different one, because in years when there is a large production of hops it is possible to put the surplus into cold storage, and in scarce years the hops which are in cold storage take the place of those which have not been grown. The result has been that you do not now get those almost fancy prices for hops which used to obtain occasionally 25 or 30 years ago.
I am glad to think that the noble Earl seems to give assent to the view that this circumstance has brought about a vital difference in the hop industry. It is, I am sure, a thing which has stabilised the position of hops. There is not the same variation between the price of hops in a bad year and the price of hops in a good year as there used to be. I remember that at the time when cold storage first came in the more advanced and progressive farmers thought it might be a good thing, as tending to stabilise the price of hops. Unfortunately, it has gone a great deal further than that. It has gone far to depress the price of hops, whether in good years or bad years.
I hope His Majesty's Government may see their way to help the hop farmer at the same time as they help other farmers throughout the country, by enabling him 93 to sell at a world-price the product of his farm produced at a cheaper cost. That, I think, is what is in the minds of His Majesty's Government if we may judge from the passages in the gracious Speech to which I have already referred, and from what has been said by the Government's representative. It is quite obvious that if His Majesty's Government are able to carry out any of the proposals which have been made by such bodies as the National Farmers' Union—if they are able to cheapen railway transport for agricultural produce, and to relieve the land of some of the burdens which rest upon it to-day—they will greatly assist the industry. A suggestion has been made by one of those bodies that they should relieve farmers of the cost of the main roads, and should assist them with regard to education. I am sure that it is in directions of that kind that the hop farmer should look for relief in the future. If His Majesty's Government are able to consider and take action with regard to local rating, I have very little doubt that the old energy and the old skill of the hop farmers will enable them to meet even this crisis with success.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)My Lords, I desire to add but one or two words, following the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. The burden of the noble Earl's argument, is that no discrimination should be accorded to the hop farmer or to the hop industry apart from the agricultural industry generally. I do not think I am quite prepared to follow him in that respect. It would be out of place for me to go into the question of the general agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government. That will be announced in due time to your Lordships, but I think the debate this evening has established the fact, and it is no use trying to hide it, that the hop industry is in an especially depressed condition due to the special circumstances which surround it. After all, the whole of the artificial character of the legislation under which we were obliged to suffer during the war has passed away in respect of most things, but it has not passed away in respect of hops, and that differentiates that portion of the agricultural industry from the remainder.
94 I rose for one purpose; and that is to try to remove from the minds of my two noble friends the idea that we approach this subject without sympathy for the hop industry. That is not so; and if they draw that inference from the speech of my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary, they have, I think, misunderstood him. I listened carefully to his speech—I thought it an extremely good one—and if my noble friends will look at it in print to-morrow they will see that in many passages he expressed sympathy for the hop industry and indicated that the Government had arrived at no final opinion as to how it ought to be treated. He indicated that various directions in which remedies might be found had been proposed and were under consideration, but that pending that consideration it was impossible for the Government to make a final declaration. I hope those passages will be taken to heart.
Of course, we take an interest in the hop industry, and most of all in the fact that if anything serious happens there would be a great displacement. of agricultural labour which would have an unfortunate effect. I do not think the noble Earl who has just spoken would wish us to ignore that possibility. He is a very strong Free Trader, but, it is impossible to apply the rigid doctrine of laissez faire to the liquidation of the circumstances of the war. If, in the course of his work, the Hop Controller has made a great miscalculation, which is the well-supported allegation of my two noble friends, that is a primâ facie reason for very careful consideration. I hope my noble friend Lord Selborne will be assured that what has been said is not the last word of the Government on this subject. I t is an assurance that we appreciate the difficulty in which the hop industry is placed and also the difficulty in which the Government is placed. If we can find some way of mitigating the mischief which will ensue if all they apprehend takes place no one will be more glad than His Majesty's Government.