HL Deb 26 March 1925 vol 60 cc782-95

LORD STRACHIE had given notice to call attention to the terms of reference of the Imperial Economic Committee and to the exclusion of British home produce from participation in the annual grant of £1,000,000 for the better marketing of Empire produce in Great Britain in con- tradiction f the previous assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary; and to move, That any grants for improved marketing of food-products of the overseas parts of the Empire in Great Britain should be accompanied by corresponding grants in favour of the British home producer.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a statement made in another place that £1,000,000 annually was to be given to farmers of the Dominions for marketing their produce in this country. How did this arise? So far at I can make out it has arisen in this way. As we are aware, at one of the series of Elections that we have had His Majesty's Conservative Government were beaten when they went to the country upon the question of taxes upon food and Imperial Preference. The country, as we know, rejected the proposal for a tax upon food. The Government had to look to see how they could carry out the pledges which they had made at the last Election that there should be no taxes upon any foodstuff of any kind. They were, however, pledged to give a preference to the Dominions, and, therefore, they were in the very awkward position of either breaking faith with the Colonies or breaking faith with the electorate here.

How were they to redeem the promise which they had made to the Dominions? They hit upon a rather good expedient from their point of view. They thought that they would do what the previous Conservative Government had done, sacrifice the British farmer. What am I referring to? I am referring to the way in which they allowed Colonial cattle to be introduced into this country against the wishes of the agriculturists of the country. During the fiscal debate last December in another place the Prime Minister said that he adhered to the pledge of no taxes on food, but added that it was quite true you could never get a complete system of Preference without thorn. Then he went on to say that at the present moment a tax on food was not a question of practical politics. What did he propose instead? As I have said, he is going to sacrifice once more the British farmer, because he said he was going to give the equivalent of £1,000,000 a year to the Colonies to develop Empire trade, and for marketing in the first place. Observe that he said "marketing in the first place," thereby allowing us to draw the inference that later the farmer of this country is going to suffer in some other way.

The Prime Minister said he would have to set up an Imperial Economic Committee. What are the terms of the reference to that Committee? As given to us later they were these:— To consider the possibility or improving the methods of preparing for market and marketing within the United Kingdom the food products of the oversea parts of the Empire with a view to increasing the consumption of such products in the United Kingdom in preference to imports from foreign countries, and to promote the interests both of producers and consumers. How on earth the interest of the producer is to be protected by making it cheaper to bring over food from the Dominions I cannot conceive.

It was agreed that, in the first place, they should concentrate on meat and fruit. I quite agree that by giving £1,000,000 a year to bring food into this country you may undoubtedly make that food cheaper, but you are certainly not going to help the farmer of this country. Strong Free Trader that I am, I have always been opposed to bounties, and I cannot see why the Government should tax the people of this country, including the farmer himself, in order that he may have competition in meat and fruit from the producers of the Dominions. Those who live in the counties that produce fruit know that those counties suffer very severely indeed under present conditions through the competition of fruit that comes in from the Dominions. I am not complaining of that, but I am complaining that bounties should be given in this way. In New Zealand and Australia the bounties are actually given for the export of meat and other articles to this country, but that is the affair of Australia and New Zealand. If they like to help their farmers in this way we cannot complain, but we do say that the British Government has no business to put taxes on this country for the benefit of producers in the Colonies and to the detriment of the producers at home.

This Economic Committee is very one-sided from the English point of view. There are only four members of the United Kingdom on it, while there are twelve members from the Dominions and one from India. There is also another remarkable thing about its constitution. While there are three agricultural members of the Dominions there is not one from the United Kingdom—rather a curious state of things. Why should this country not be represented on that Committee from the agricultural point of view? In the Prime Minister's speech to which I have referred there is a suggestion that there should be increased facilities in the matter of railway charges and shipping; that is to say, that there should be a subsidy in order to help the Dominions to bring the goods to the various ports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate seemed rather nervous about this matter, because he said:— Great care will have to be taken in the administration of this policy, about which details will be given at a later stage to make quite sure that we do not, in so doing, inflict an injustice on our own agricultural producers.

That is exactly what I am saying, and I am asking your Lordships to express your opinion that some equivalent should be given to British agriculturists.

There is, however, another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to a Question in another place. He said this:— The terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee do not contemplate the consideration of improved methods of marketing British produce. As my hon. friend is aware, funds have already been provided for assisting by way of loan co-operative enterprises for the marketing of home produce, and the Ministry of Agriculture is carrying out a series of investigations into the marketing problem as a whole The first Report will shortly be published, and it will then be possible to estimate what further assistance may be considered necessary in this direction.

That is no answer at all. It is no answer to say that the British farmer should be perfectly satisfied with what the Government are doing for him. We do not want to be told that because we have obtained some grants already we should be satisfied. I want equivalent terms for the British farmer, who has to withstand great competition. I do not fear competition. Strong Free Trader as I am, I think it is unfair to give more than £1,000,000 a year in order to enable the Dominion farmer to compete in this country and sell his goods at less price than they can be produced here. It is not fair.

I ask this question: Why are we taxing this country in order to help the Dominion farmer to undersell the British farmer? That is what it really comes to. We want equality of treatment, and if we are to have subsidies of any kind—I object to them—why should we not have subsidies for the British farmer as well as for the farmer in the Dominions? If the Dominion farmer is to have marketing facilities why should not the British farmer have the same facilities? I am voicing the opinion of every farmer in this country in saying that it is a, great injustice indeed that this sum of money should be given in order to enable the Dominion farmers to bring their produce here at less expense and compete with our own producers. I have not the slightest objection to competition. We have to stand it, and to meet it, but it is most unfair that a grant of this kind should be given unless an equivalent grant is made to the British farmer. I beg to move.

Moved, That any grants for improved marketing of food-products of the overseas parts of the Empire in Great Britain should be accompanied by corresponding grants in favour of the British home producer.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, the only complaint I have to make about the noble Lord who introduced this subject is that in reading the terms of reference to the Imperial Economic Committee he failed to lay stress on the right words, and that makes a great difference to the way that that reference is understood. First of all, there were two inquiries to be undertaken by this Imperial Economic Committee. They were related, although they really were separate and independent inquiries. The noble Lord has given one reference and I only want to read a few words of it again. As regards improving the methods of preparing for market and marketing, the terms of reference said:— …. with a view to increasing the consumption of such products in the United Kingdom in preference to imports from foreign countries.… In reading it the noble Lord slurred over altogether the words "foreign countries." I hardly heard them. They did not sound resonant enough, and that is really the whole point. The statement ends up, as the noble Lord said, with the words:— It has also been agreed that the Committee should concentrate its attention first on meat and on fruit. With regard to the second inquiry I shall have to ask the House to allow me to read a statement:— It has further been arranged that the Committee should be invited to make recommendations to the home Government regarding schemes upon which useful expenditure might be incurred out of the £1.000.000 a year which is to be devoted by the home Government to securing for producers in the oversea parts of the Empire a larger share of that portion of the United Kingdom market in foodstuffs which has to be supplied by importation from abroad. I call the noble Lord's attention to this. There again the emphasis is on the competition between foreign foodstuffs and foodstuffs from the Dominions, and not between foodstuffs from the Dominions and foodstuffs produced in this country.

Those two inquiries, with these two special references, had a quite different origin. The first, as regards marketing, comes directly from the recommendations of the Imperial Economic Conference, which preceded the setting up of that Committee, and the discussions which took place at the Imperial Economic Conference itself about marketing these Empire foodstuffs. The second represents the equivalent in money to Empire producers of the Preference proposals which were put forward, as the House knows, when the Imperial Economic Committee was set up, but which, in deference to the pledges and undertakings given by the Prime Minister at the General Election, could not be put into action. Accordingly, these two inquiries have, as I said, a separate and a different origin. That £1,000.000 a year, therefore, is a part of the Preference proposals and must be devoted to the task of achieving the same end as the Preference proposals themselves—that is to say, the encouragement of the consumption of Empire foodstuffs and products in the United Kingdom in preference to foreign productions and foodstuffs.

Accordingly, the Imperial Economic Committee will make recommendations on both those subjects, but, of course, it docs not at all follow that the recommendations made on the one subject—that is to say, as regards marketing—will necessarily be accepted in connection with the other. The Committee will probably indicate to the home Government which of their recommendations regarding marketing of foodstuffs are suitable for consideration in connection with the spending of the £1,000,000 a year, but the spending of this money will, of course, remain wholly in the hands of the British Government. The Imperial Economic Committee is only an advisory Committee which can make suggestions but cannot take any executive action, and, if the Committee were to recommend schemes which were contrary to the interests of agriculturists in the United Kingdom, then the Government at home would have absolute power to veto those recommendations or not to carry them into effect. The home Government, therefore, retains entirely in its hands the power of dealing with this matter in the interests of this country and of the agricultural community.

But if we look at the probabilities, it will be seen that it is not likely that this Committee will bring forward any such recommendations, because their terms of reference specifically order them to devote their attention to substituting Empire foodstuffs for foreign imported foodstuffs, and the Committee thoroughly understand the attitude of the home Government towards the home producer. This is perfectly clear from the statement made by the Chairman at the first meeting of the Imperial Economic Committee. Sir Halford Mackinder then said that the terms of reference of the Committee had been so drawn as to indicate that the chief question with which the Committee was concerned was the foreign food supplier and not the home producer in the United Kingdom. The Committee would therefore aim at endeavouring to secure that the foodstuffs of this country came so far as possible from inside the Empire, produced either on this island"— I would call the attention of the noble Lord to those words— or in those parts which lay overseas. That statement shows quite clearly that the Chairman of the Committee had in his head all those difficulties which have suggested themselves to the noble Lord, and that these difficulties have been by no means overlooked by the Imperial Economic Committee.

The position of the home producer is protected or safeguarded—I ought perhaps to use the word "safeguarded" rather than "protected" nowadays—in two ways. The Committee is in no doubt whatever as to the scope or nature of its task, and the home Government has complete control of the allocation of the money. This again is, of course, subject to the control of the House of Commons, and I should like, if the House will allow me, to quote from a statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. He said— No expenditure can be incurred on this service— that is to say, the £1,000,000— until the necessary Vote has been passed by the House of Commons. When a full schema has been prepared an estimate will be presented, and there will he thus an abundant opportunity for discussion. Meanwhile I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance already given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great care will be taken in the administration of this policy to make sure that no injustice is done to homo producers Now let me say a word about the problem which the Imperial Economic Committee has to face. Take the questions of meat and fruit, which were the first to be dealt with by the Committee in its investigations. I should like to quote some figures showing the percentages of the total consumption in this country of meat and fruit in 1024, taking production at home, imports from British Dominions overseas, and imports from foreign countries. In the case of meat, the home production was 40 per cent., that imported from British Dominions overseas was 17 per cent., and that imported from foreign countries was 43 per cent., showing, of course, that there is a vast margin for the operation of these new proposals in order to withdraw at least some of that 43 per cent. from the foreign to the Imperial producer. Then take fruit: the production of fruit in this country is 44 per cent., the proportion from British Dominions overseas is 16 per cent., and no less than 40 per cent. is imported from foreign countries, showing again that there is a possibility of a very large transfer of importations as between the foreign producer and the Imperial producer.

The duty of the Imperial Economic Committee is to make recommendations which, while increasing the amount imported from the Dominions at the expense of the foreign producer, will take care that production at home does not suffer. I could follow this out—but I do not want to detain the House at this hour—with further figures regarding wheat, butter, cheese and eggs, and it is very easy to show—the figures will be quite familiar to the noble Lord—that the home supply is not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements of this country, so that a large amount of goods must be imported to make up the difference. The task of the Imperial Economic Committee is to ensure that this balance comes as far as possible from within the Empire. Its duty is to conduct on behalf of Dominion producers an inquiry into marketing very similar to that carried out by the Linlithgow Committee in 1023 on behalf of the home producer. This country will have its own representatives on that Committee and it is intended that the Committee shall carry out its duties without any detriment to the home producer.

It is quite possible, moreover, that this Committee will make recommendations which are at the same time advantageous both to imported Dominion foodstuffs and to home-produced foodstuffs. For instance, it might appear as the result of its investigations that the facilities for the carriage and storage of meat and fruit in the United Kingdom were not sufficient or were not situated in the right places, and any recommendation for improvement in this respect would be equally valuable both to the home producer of meat and fruit and to the producer of meat, and fruit imported from within the Empire. If the Committee were to make similar recommendations with regard to the reorganisation of the meat and fruit distributing and marketing centres in this country, both home produced meat and fruit and Empire supplies would equally benefit.

I do not think I need deal with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the noble Lord has already given that to the House, but there, again, he made it perfectly clear that no injustice would be done to the domestic producers. There was, I think, a suggestion that the Farmers' Union should have representation on this Committee, but the reply was:— The Committee will be invited to make recommendations in an advisory capacity regarding schemes intended to secure for producers in the oversea parts of the Empire a larger share of that portion of the United Kingdom market in foodstuffs which has to be supplied by importation from abroad; and the Colonial Secretary has no doubt that, if and when any proposals are made which may affect the interests of the home pro- ducers, the Minister of Agriculture will use every endeavour to see that full consideration is given to their position. There is another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has been given quite correctly by the noble Lord, although in giving it I did not think he laid sufficient emphasis on what was being done for the farmers of this country, in order to assist the marketing of home produce.

Now, as regards the general scope and duties of this Committee, I must again remind you that it is the outcome of the work of the Imperial Economic Conference. The Committee recommended by that Conference was to have been a permanent body undertaking economic investigations referred to it by any part of the Empire, but the present Committee does not go so far as that. It is limited to the inquiry into the marketing of foodstuffs. I may sum up the statement very shortly by pointing out that the whole work of this Committee, both in its aim and scope, is not to encourage competition at the expense of the home producer, but to encourage such competition between the Imperial producer and the foreigner that a much larger proportion of these imported foodstuffs are produced by and brought to this country from the Dominions.

Let me remind the noble Lord of this second point, that after all the House of Commons, when the Estimates are brought up, will have full control over all these matters, and if there is any proposal which in the opinion of members is in any way dangerous to the interests of the home producer, then their case will be made out. I suggest to the noble Lord that it will be much easier to discuss these matters when dealing with concrete cases than when dealing with rather unsatisfying or general statements, when we do not know what specific proposals are likely to be brought forward on which this money will be spent, Therefore I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurances of the Government that the question of the interests of the home producer will be most carefully looked after and safeguarded, and I hope that the fears which he has expressed will have no foundation in actual fact.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, I do not intend to intervene in the debate for more than a moment. There will be other opportunities, as the year goes on, of discussing these matters, but I would like to ask one or two questions. The noble Viscount tells us that this sum of £1,000,000 is equivalent to the value of the Preference proposals which the Government feel that they cannot implement. Will the noble Lord tell us how that sum of £1,000,000 has been arrived at, or will he lay a Paper to show it? I think it is a fair request, and that such a Paper will be useful in view of the discussions which will arise before very long. If this £1,000,000 is to take the place of these discarded or non-implemented proposals, is it to be divided in proportion to the benefit which would have been conferred if these proposals had been implemented? If it is not, there seems to be a disparity between what the noble Viscount has said and what may work out under the findings of this Committee.

Then we are told that this £1,000,000 is to take the place of the value which the discarded proposals would have been to the Dominions, but the noble Viscount is surely aware that it is one of the first arguments, or at any rate one of the chief arguments, of the Preferentialists, that the preference will improve in value as time goes on. He told us that this £1,000,000 was to serve precisely the same end as the Preference proposals. Is the £1,000,000 also to be increased as time goes on, so that in five, ten or twenty years we shall be paying what the Preferentialists estimate to be the value of preference at that time? If that is going to be done, has any estimate been formed as to what the cost to this country will be? Can the noble Viscount give us any information on any of these points? I shall be very glad if he can, because I think it will be very useful to have more light on these matters than we have now, in view of future debates.

LORD HARRIS

I entirely sympathise with the inquiry of the noble Lord, but perhaps it is hardly necessary to divide the House on his Motion after the explanation of the noble Viscount on the Front Bench. I think that the statement made was, upon the whole, reassuring, and that the Government are quite well aware that it will be necessary to safeguard the British producer. I think we may be pretty certain of this, that the various associations and clubs connected with agriculture will keep a pretty sharp look-out upon the Board of Trade, and I hope also that the Ministry of Agriculture will keep an eye upon the Board of Trade, as to any nefarious ideas which the latter may hold as regards putting up the Dominion producer against the British producer.

At the same time, I do think there are dilemmas about this idea. Take the percentage figures that the noble Viscount has just given us. Obviously the chief competitor both of the British producer and the Dominion producer is the foreigner, and the latent idea is that the Dominion producer should be assisted against the foreign producer. If that means anything at all, it means that the Dominion producer is to have an advantage over the chief competitor that the British producer has got to face, and as we have in many things to accept the market price of goods as produced by the foreigner, we shall have to accept an even lower price from the Dominions. That seems to me inevitable if things are carried out.

It applies now to fruit. Of course, the Dominion taxpayer can do as he chooses, and I believe that, in fact, New Zealand gives a subsidy upon every box of apples sent to this country. I do not carry the figures in my mind, but I was told a year or two ago that they give 5s. a box on every box of apples sent to this wintry. And therefore the New Zealand producer is already competing favourably against the English producer. If he has that advantage, and in addition is to have the advantage of the British producer being taxed in order to assist him to come in, I can well understand that there would be a great deal of grumbling in this country and that the various associations which exist for the protection of agriculture would be a pretty busy nest of hornets round the noble Viscount's head. Therefore I think that on this occasion it is hardly necessary for my noble friend to press his Motion. I was very glad to see my noble friend (Lord Bledisloe) give a nod of acquiescence just now when I suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture should keep a sharp look-out on the Board of Trade.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was quite aware that I was carefully watched by the representative of he Ministry of Agriculture while I was making that statement. As regards the points which were put to me by Lord Arnold, of course these calculations as to the amount of preference must be to some extent estimates, as the noble Lord knows, but I will see whether it is possible to give him any figures which will show exactly how the amount is arrived at. The second point he asked me was whether, as the preference was not going to advantage equally different Dominions, the £1,000,000 was to be spent in the like proportion as the preference would have advantaged those particular Dominions. Of course, I cannot answer that at the present moment, because that will partly depend on the operations of the Imperial Economic Committee.

LORD ARNOLD

Yes, but is it not the case that, unless the matter worked out like that, it is not possible to argue that this million will take the place of the Preference proposals?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think that it is extremely difficult at this stage to say that there will be an exact equation between the advantage accruing to every particular Dominion from the Preference proposals which were dropped and the application of this £1,000,000, until we know how it is to be spent. But I would ask the noble Lord to take a wider view and to consider the advantage to the whole Empire and this country, rather than to look too meticulously into the exact proportion of advantage to every particular portion of the Empire. Then he asked me whether, as the advantage under Preference may grow—and I was very interested to hear him make that admission—

LORD ARNOLD

No, no. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. I distinctly said in every case that it was the view of the preferentialists.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Well, at at any rate I think I may tell the noble Lord that there is no intention of giving any more.

LORD ARNOLD

That is the final amount?

VISCOUNT PEEL

£1,000,000 is the final amount.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I am not satisfied with the reply given by the Government, because the noble Viscount has most carefully evaded the real issue, Will the Government pledge themselves that if any sum is given to the Dominion producers to enable them to market their goods in this country, a like amount will be given to British farmers in order that they may, under great difficulties from heavy railway rates, have an equivalent help in marketing their goods? In the absence of any such assurance I am bound to press my Motion.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I told the noble Lord that I could not make a statement of that kind at the present moment, for one good reason—that many of these schemes may be of advantage to the home producer as well as to the Dominion producer, and therefore you cannot at the present moment strike an exact equation.

On Question, Motion negatived.