EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD. (Hansard, 18 July 1927)

HL Deb 18 July 1927 vol 68 cc583-601 583

§ LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move for a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant, as the Command Paper No. 2898 does not clearly set out the expenditure of that Board. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Motion on the Paper, some fortnight or more ago, no kind of note or indication of the proceedings of the Board had yet been circulated, but owing to absence of the Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs, who represents the Colonial Office in this House, it had to be put off. I regret that to-day the noble Lord is ill and unable to be present. On the other hand, I understand that Lord Bledisloe, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture, is here and he is just as well fitted to give an answer as would be the noble Lord. Although it is true that what they call a "Note on the work of the Board" has been circulated, that, as I say in my Motion, is not very clear. Why do I say that? Because in this Note, which does not profess to be a regular Return, it is stated that:— Expenditure in the financial year 1926, brought to account at 31st of March, 1927, amounted to about £103,000, of which some £67,000, was in connection with publicity and £22,000 in connection with research grants.

§ I must say I have tried to study this very complicated Paper but I cannot make the figures correspond.

§ I have had an expert to make out the figures for me, but we have to consider the ordinary public who read that statement. I make out that the Empire Marketing Board gives grants for the Colonies of £99,258; to England and Scotland, £100,328; and to research work, £97,650. That is a total of £297,236. That total is very different from £100,000. I am only raising that matter to show how difficult it is for the ordinary person to understand this Paper, and I think I am justified in asking that some clearer statement may be made. I cannot help thinking that it is rather an extraordinary state of things that the British taxpayer should have to provide large sums of money when he does not know how it is being spent. I notice that The Times says: Why should British taxpayers find £500,000 a year in these difficult times for 584 expenditure which actually prejudices the British producer and over which he has no direct control.

§ That is exactly what I hear wherever I go in ordinary agricultural places. The ordinary farmer is suffering from depression. Noble Lords in this House have told me that they expect to have hundreds, if not thousands, of acres thrown on their hands owing to the depressed state of agriculture. The Times says that the first answer is that it is a "debt of honour," and the second answer that "the British producer cannot be prejudicially affected." I must say those are most startling statements.

§ No doubt noble Lords and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry have read a statement made by that very prominent member of the National Farmers' Union, Mr. Robbins, who, referring to the manifesto of the Prime Minister at one of the many General Elections in the last few years, stated that it proclaimed the determination of the Unionist Party 'to safeguard the employment and standard of living of our people in any efficient industry in which they are imperilled by unfair foreign competition by the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act or by analogous measures.'

§ I have read that in order to show what was the origin of the Empire Marketing Board. Undoubtedly its origin was that at a General Election the Prime Minister said that he had gone to the country to ask it to return him to power in order that he might apply Protection all round, and to safeguard the interests of agriculture just as much as the interests of the manufacturer. We agriculturists when we buy have in many cases to pay a great deal more owing to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. On the other hand, we get no advantage in any other direction. For what we sell there is no preference, no protection.

§ What happened at that General Election? The Prime Minister proposed Protection all round. I have always said as a strong Free Trader that if you ever have Protection you must have it all round, because it is not fair to protect the manufacturer and not the farmer. I am absolutely opposed to both. I am for Free Trade, an open market and no Protection for anybody. The country rejected both those proposals because the Prime Minister had stated that at the same time he was going to give 585 Preference to the Colonies. And yet The Times says it is a question of honour, a pledge. But surely it was just as much a pledge to the agriculturist of this country as it was to the Colonies. If the electors turned down Protection for this country surely they turned it down for the Colonies. Why should the Prime Minister think in one case that he ought to carry out his pledge and in the other he should not carry it out? That seems to me an extraordinary thing. The Prime Minister then said that he was going to give a million to make up for the Preference not being given to the Colonies. I am glad to think that the Council of Agriculture raised this question, and said that it was grossly unfair that £1,000,000 should be given to the Colonies to under-sell the farmer at home. A kind of concession was then made, and, instead of the whole £1,000,000 being given to the Colonies, half of it was to be given for the benefit of agriculture in this country. But still, all the same, there remains that half-million, which the British taxpayer and the British farmer have to pay for the benefit of Colonial goods, which come to this country and undersell us in our markets. The question is how is this £500,000 spent? I am glad to think that a good deal of it is spent in research and investigation, both in the Colonies and in this country. I have not one word to say against our doing everything we can to assist the farmer by investigation and research, whether in this country or in the Colonies. On the other hand, it does seem to me that it is hardly fair to tax our farmers for the benefit of the people in the Colonies.

§ I was very much interested this morning in visiting the Advertising Exhibition, where I had the opportunity of hearing the Secretary of State for the Colonies perform the opening ceremony. As far as I could gather from his speech, he did not say one word about the £500,000 that was being expended in this country. I was surprised to see that the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary were absent from that great show. No doubt there were very good reasons. But still I should have thought that in a matter of this sort, when English farmers were interested in these developments, and when the Empire Marketing Board are showing British 586 goods, as well as Colonial goods, there was something to be said on behalf of British agriculture. But it was even worse than that, because when I went round and looked at the great pavilion which the Empire Marketing Board have set up at the expense of the British taxpayer I was very much surprised to find that in that pavilion, in a most prominent position in the exhibition, there was a large display advertising goods coming from abroad—foreign salmon and liqueurs, goods from Monte Video, and American tinned goods.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
The advertisement was of the containers, and not of their contents.

§ LORD STRACHIE
They were advertising the goods, and certainly I myself saw containers marked as coming from France, which were certainly full of fruit. They were not empty. But still, supposing they were empty, I do not see how the noble Lord can defend the practice of advertising at the expense of the taxpayers of this country and to the detriment of the British farmer, produce which comes from abroad. I am surprised that the noble Lord should say it is only an advertisement to show how those goods can be packed. I notice that the Empire Marketing Board have long advertised in The Times and other newspapers. I have one of those advertisements in my hand, running to twenty-eight lines. I shall not quote the whole of it, but it asks the public to buy Empire fruit end Empire meat from half across the world—they reach you sweet and fresh. It goes on to say:— The Empire Marketing Board is helping to make cold storage better still, helping, that is, to add to your supplies of Empire fruits and meat, and to lower their prices. It ends up by exhorting the British public in large capital letters to "Buy Empire produce" and then in smaller letters appear the words "from Home and overseas"—the only line in which "Home" appears.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
Will the noble Lord say what is the date of that particular advertisement?

§ LORD STRACHIE
I think it appeared early this month, but I will send the noble Lord a copy of it. I have another 587 advertisement in regard to India. This states:— Think how the prosperity of our own great textile industries, our iron and steel and machinery and engineering works depend on the prosperity of your fellow-citizens in India. I take no objection to that. It goes on to say:— It is by buying from India and from the whole Empire—butter and fruit from Australia, apples and cheese from Canada, mutton and lamb from New Zealand, wine and tobacco from South Africa—that we enrich our friends and our friends enrich us. We see these advertisements in all places advertising Colonial food products. There is, for instance, one which says "Buy cheese from Canada." I would ask the noble Lord, is it necessary to advertise cheese from Canada? Surely we have quite enough cheese in this country. Our Cheddar cheese is being undersold by Colonial competition. I have not the slightest objection to Colonial cheese coming in, but what I do object to is that the money of the taxpayer and the farmer of this country should be used to urge the people of this country to buy Canadian cheese. It is not as if Canadian cheese was not coming in increasing quantities into this country. The last available figures that I have show an increase of over 5,000 tons in the amount of Canadian cheese coming into this country.
Subsidies are granted by Colonial Governments and those subsidies are simply used to enable the Colonial producer to undersell British produce. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that in Australia and other Colonies subsidies are actually given for the export of products which compete with the products of this country. I believe in New Zealand a subsidy of 5s. per case is given for each case of apples exported, and we are constantly being told by the apple producers in this country that the low price which they are able to get for their apples is due to this competition. I have not the slightest objection to fair competition, but I do not call it fair competition when bounties are given by Dominion Governments and this country is then asked to pay for advertisements asking the people here to buy those products which compete with our own homegrown produce.
588 At Liverpool the Empire Marketing Board has set up a branch mainly for advertising and assisting the sale of Canadian apples in this country. If the noble Lord has not heard of that perhaps he will enquire. I am in favour of the people of this country buying the maximum amount of goods from our Colonies and Dominions as long as those goods do not compete unfairly with our own. If you wish to give the Dominions an advantage I do not think it should be done at the expense of the British taxpayer. I noticed in The Times the other day that it was stated that before the War the amount of sugar coming into this country from the Dominions was 2¼ million cwt. and that now there is actually 7½ million cwt. coming in, while the increase in the amount of tobacco coming in is even more surprising. Before the War there was only 1,250,000 lbs. coming into this country from the Dominions while at the present time the amount is 14 million lbs. I do not wish to do anything that would hamper the Colonies in sending goods to this country, but speaking for the agriculturists of this country, irrespective of Party, I say that it is not fair that the British taxpayer and farmer should have to assist in paying for advertisements of Colonial products which compete with the produce of the farmer in this country when agriculture in Great Britain is in such a bad state as it is said to be in. I beg to move.

§ Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant.—(Lord Strachie.)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)
My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend Lord Lovat, who represents the Dominions' Office in this House, is, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, somewhat seriously indisposed and at very short notice I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord. I would ask the House kindly to grant me some indulgence because the figures that the noble Lord has asked for have only been furnished to me officially at the very last moment. At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Strachie has pointed out, I 589 cannot claim to be wholly ignorant of the administration of the Empire Marketing Board because I am myself a member of it. The noble Lord has not by any means confined himself to his Motion upon the Paper. He moves for a Return of the grants made by the Empire Marketing Board out of the £1,000,000 annual grant as the Command Paper No. 2,898 does not clearly set out the expenditure of that Board. The noble Lord has embarked upon the whole difficult subject of the extent to which we are justified in encouraging the advertising and also the consumption of overseas Empire food products which may possibly come into competition with the relatively small amount which can be raised in this country for the requirements of our large population. The noble Lord asks why the British taxpayer should find £1,000,000 to boom overseas produce and he threw some ridicule on the suggestion made, I believe, in The Times newspaper, that that was a debt of honour. It was a debt of honour and it was a debt of honour entered into, not before but after—

§ LORD STRACHIE
The noble Lord misinterprets me. I said if it was a debt of honour to the Colonies it would be equally a debt of honour to the farmers of this country.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
The noble Lord is in rather too great a hurry. I was about to say it is a debt of honour contracted after the country had turned down preferential treatment for Dominion produce, and it was in consequence of an undertaking given by the Imperial Conference—not the last Imperial Conference but the Imperial Conference held in 1923—that this debt of honour was undertaken in lieu of preference treatment for such products and also as a quid pro quo for preferences which were being given to ourselves by various parts of our Empire. I may say in passing that it is a relatively small proportion of food products that we can raise on our own soil to meet the requirements of our home consumers. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Empire Marketing Board and by the Government that the British public are asked, and expected, so far as possible to give the first preference to produce raised on our own soil, and where that is not forthcoming or does not suffice that 590 they will select overseas Empire produce before they have recourse to the produce of foreign countries. If the large exports of merchandise and manufactured goods which pass from this country to other countries, and especially those that pass to our overseas Dominions, can be paid for by Empire produce so much the better. That is exactly what we are asking shall take place as far as possible.
The noble Lord referred to a certain advertisement in The Times and I particularly asked what was the date of that advertisement because he seemed to assume that that advertisement represented the whole case as presented by the Empire Marketing Board.

§ LORD STRACHIE
I have it now. It was July 8.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
If the noble Lord had taken the trouble to refer to similar advertisements issued at other times he would have discovered that there are plenty of advertisements appearing from time to time that help the marketing of British agricultural produce in preference to similar produce coming from any other part of the world. For instance, there have been during the last few months three Press advertisements of British dairy produce. There has been quite recently—within the last fortnight—an advertisement of home-grown vegetables, and there is another advertisement relating to British cheese which is about to appear in the Press and probably will appear in the course of the next week. Most of the noble Lord's speech was directed towards the inadequacy of the contribution out of this Fund towards the advertising of home raised produce. In answer to that I should like to remind the noble Lord that the Empire Marketing Board has only recently come into effective operation and is only actually expending a part of a large fund which has been placed at its disposal. But during the last few months it has been decided that no less than £40,000 a year shall be ear-marked for five years and shall be placed in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture in order to advertise and promote the sale of home-raised agricultural produce.

§ LORD PARMOOR
Out of what sum is that?

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
I am coming to the actual expenditure if the noble Lord 591 will kindly wait. This sum is being expended in various ways. First of all, there are the research grants to which the noble Lord has referred, which are being made to various research institutes in this country for the benefit not merely of this country but also of our overseas Dominions and Colonies. Apart from that expenditure, which does benefit our own agricultural community, money is being applied in carrying out investigations into methods of marketing and in issuing reports which I think are publicly known as Orange Books, relating to almost every description of agricultural produce which can be raised and marketed with advantage from our own soil. To give the noble Lord an illustration of the utility of this work, I may say that over 30,000 copies of these Orange Books have already been sold in this country. No fewer than 900 copies were actually sold at the Royal Agricultural Show at Newport last week, and 2,500 copies have been sold at various demonstrations of the marketing of British produce at other shows which have been held this year. The shows at which these demonstrations, all subsidised by the Empire Marketing Board, have taken place are the Bath and West of England Show, which the noble Lord himself attended at Bath, the Royal Cornwall Show at Truro, the Show at Spalding, that at Oxford, that at Ipswich, and last, but not least, the Royal Agricultural Show last week at Newport. Similar exhibitions and demonstrations are going to be held at Darlington and at the Royal Welsh Show at Swansea. Quite a considerable amount of money, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, is in fact being spent in publicity in relation to home-grown produce.
To go back to the noble Lord's Question, the expenditure of the Empire Marketing Board, as no doubt noble Lords are aware, falls under two main headings—first, research; secondly, publicity. The grants approved by the Board and the Secretary of State under the first heading are set out in detail in the Note to which the noble Lord has referred, which has been issued as Command Paper No. 2,898. The total expenditure involved in these schemes, some of which is capital and some 592 spread over periods of years, amounts to £415,000. Just to explain what I mean by saying some of it is capital and some is spread over periods of years, the noble Lord will see, if he looks at the Appendix, such items as Animal Breeding at Cambridge, under which head he will find £5,000 allocated as capital and £400 has been promised for five years for carrying on the work. So also with the National Institute for Research in Dairying. £1,600 has been earmarked for two years and may be renewed at the end of that period. Of that amount of £415,000 the actual disbursements—I think this answers the noble Lord opposite—to the end of last month amounted approximately to £50,000, of which £22,500 was capital expenditure. That is on research only.
The other main heading is that of Publicity. The actual disbursements under this head up to the end of last month amounted to £135,790, of which £33,025 was capital. The main items in this total—they are not s-t out in detail in the Appendix, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, will permit me to mention them—are; Press advertising, £56,338; poster campaign, £42,181; exhibitions, £25,782; Imperial Institute cinema, £5,950, and what are called shopping weeks, £4,800. In addition to these two main headings of expenditure, the secretarial expenses of the Board up to the end of last month amounted to £16,430. As regards the proposed further return of grants made by the Empire Marketing Board, having regard to the research grants already set out in the Command Paper to which I have referred, and to the fact that the appropriation account will appear in due course, the Government do not consider it necessary at present to lay any further Papers. Perhaps I ought to have added that the expenditure, under the head of the. Empire Marketing Grant, will be accounted for in detail to the Controller and Auditor-General. The appropriation account of this grant will appear about November next, and will be supported by a copy of the Empire Marketing Fund deposit account, into which the grant is paid. So much in answer to the noble Lord's Question as it appears upon the Paper.
The noble Lord has this morning, I understand, paid a visit to the Advertising 593 Exhibition at Olympia, and as a result I gather that he has two complaints to make. The first concerns certain exhibits which appear, I am told, on the right-hand side of the Empire Marketing Board's exhibit, which I believe is divided into two parts. On that side there appears what is intended to be an exhibit of containers, and about 10 per cent. of those containers—it is quite true that they contain a certain amount of produce—are in fact of foreign origin. They are shown as samples, which may or may not be worthy of imitation, bearing in mind that certain countries—notably the French—do undoubtedly present their produce better packed and in more attractive containers than we in this country. Some of the containers to which the noble Lord refers are French containers, and very attractive they are But I want to say quite frankly that, if there is any substantial objection to these containers, with or without produce inside them, appearing on this stand, we are quite ready to withdraw them at once. But I think it is only fair to say that we do require some education in the attractive and suitable presentment of our produce in proper containers, and this appears to us to be a sufficient justification for a small number of foreign containers appearing on this particular stand, although some 90 per cent. of the containers are of British and overseas Empire origin.
I turn to the noble Lord's other point. I am not quite sure if the noble Lord has effectively voiced his complaint, but I understand it to be—and I am bound to say that it is a well-founded one—that there was considerable delay in getting the stand ready—

§ LORD STRACHIE
I did not refer to it.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
If the noble Lord did not refer to it, I am going to refer to it, because I understand that this complaint will undoubtedly appear in the Press, and I understood that it was a subject upon which the noble Lord was most likely to exercise his rhetoric in this House. Undoubtedly there was delay in arranging and setting up the left half of this very large stand, which is among the largest in the exhibition at Olympia. I have to express deep regret that, owing to the organising committee of this exhibition under-estimating the time that 594 it would take fully to arrange and equip this particular exhibit—the hall having only been taken for nine days when a longer period would have been justified—the exhibit was, I believe, still being arranged up to midnight on Sunday. I think it was suggested that when it was ready for the public to see this morning it was in a disorganised condition, but that is not the fact. The fact is that it is a very fine exhibit, and the public are able to see it, as we believe, effectively shown. All those who choose to visit the exhibition cannot, I think, fail to feel proud of this splendid display of Empire produce, including British produce, which appears so well staged at Olympia. I mention this only because I venture to hope that nothing that may be said in this House may lead the public generally to suppose that this exhibit is not a very fine one and well worthy of a visit of inspection. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, and if I have not effectively answered the noble Lord opposite I would remind him that, as I said, I had only a moment's notice to take the place of my noble friend Lord Lovat. If the noble Lord is not satisfied, I shall be pleased to see that he has an effective answer at a later date.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, I think we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, for bringing this matter before the House. I am bound to say that I do not think that the noble Lord opposite has even attempted to answer the main allegation put forward by the noble Lord. I may remind him that when we had a discussion on agriculture in this House not long ago I myself raised the point, and he then asked me not to press for any further answer because the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, had put down his Question, which was coming forward on a subsequent day. What is the complaint? I am not going into matters of detail that have already been thoroughly put before your Lordships by Lord Strachie. The complaint is that, at a very difficult time in the history of agriculture in this country, our taxpayers, including the farmers, are called upon to give a protection against themselves by advertising, through the Empire Marketing Board, competing goods. That is a very hard measure indeed. There is not the 595 slightest doubt that the greatest difficulty that at present confronts the farmers of this country is the want of marketing facilities. The noble Lord is quite aware of that. If this money is to be expended—I am not now dealing with particular sums—in improving marketing facilities, I say without any hesitation that it ought to have gone to the assistance of our own farmers and not to that of their competitors.
I do not want to find any fault with schemes to further Imperial trade, but it is not right that Imperial or any other trade should have these artificial subsidies—for that is what it comes to—which tell to the disadvantage of our own farmers and our own agricultural interests. I am sure that neither the noble Lord nor any one else can dispute what I say, and, in regard to marketing facilities, one of the most important needs is that of adequate advertisement. I am not discussing what particular proportion of the sums that have been mentioned as being expended on publicity will inure to the benefit of British farmers. The question is why we should provide money to give this publicity to our competitors, who, as the noble Lord has pointed out, have subsidies from their own Governments at the present time. And this is done by the Government which professes to have agricultural interests at heart! There can be no answer to this. It is not a question of proportions, although a very large amount of this money is, in fact, entirely devoted to advertising competitive producers. But that is not the point. The point is why, at a time when our own industry is being starved, as some people say for the want of proper marketing facilities, should the taxpayer of this country have to provide money for the competitive producer? Personally I cannot find any answer.
Take the case of fruit, to which the noble Lord referred. We have all seen these fruit advertisements. I will give you two illustrations on the question of fruit. I know a neighbour of mine who planted a very large amount of orchard, 40 or 50 acres, about twenty years ago. It was very costly and there has been no return, although it means a great deal to keep an orchard going from year to year. He has never been able to obtain 596 a return in money in excess of his expenditure because of the costliness of marketing facilities and the want of proper marketing facilities. In the year in which he did best he told me he only lost about £5. That is to say, getting his fruit to market cost him about £5 more than what he obtained when it got there. That is the problem. Only the other day I was looking at an orchard and remarked that it had not been well kept up. The owner said that he sent to a Department—I think it was the Ministry of Agriculture—and asked them what he should do to it. The answer of their representative was: "Do nothing. If you like to see the blossom in your garden well and good. Under the present conditions, and with the amount that is going to be spent in advertising your competitive producers, do not spend a farthing on it. It will all go waste."

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
The noble Lord does not suggest that that opinion was expressed by a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture?

§ LORD PARMOOR
I said I was not sure it was the Ministry of Agriculture. It was a representative of the Research Department of (it may have been) one of the Universities. It was the recommendation made by a researchist sent down by a Research Department at the request of a grower who had a great desire to manage his orchard in a proper manner. "Impossible," was the answer, "you may like to see the blossom, but any expenditure beyond that under present conditions would be sheer waste." Again, why should cheese be advertised? Like the noble Lord, I am a Free Trader and a tremendous opponent of Protection to our farmers, although one may say it is very difficult to find any other method of getting them prosperity. In those circumstances, what answer has the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, given to what is the real complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie? Not only is there no protection but you are giving a subsidy of a very important amount from the taxes of this country, to which our farmers contribute their proportionate amount, in order to promote artificially a competition which is already subsidised by the producing country. That appears to me unthinkable unless you take the view, which some people do, that all the 597 land of this country should be let go to waste and that we should only regard the industrial side of our life. To my mind that would be the most fatal mistake any country could make. Why should you conduce to it when you profess, as part of your policy, to be the farmer's friends?
The mischief is that you have dangled Protection, which is found to be impossible. You have promised these debts of honour—although I do not understand why the undertakings of the imperial Conference should be called debts of honour when they cannot be more than suggestions—to our Colonies and their answer, speaking from considerable experience with them, is not gratitude. They think how foolish you are to, think that they are going to be hound by the present conditions. They say they will free themselves from the necessity of our manufacturing produce in the course of time and to-day a very large number of them do not ask for that sort of treatment. In their political life there it is, I believe, popular. It would be very popular if we could say here that Australia was going to have a system of advertising English apples, which would give us a market, although under non-artificial conditions we would have no chance at all. I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, who is very interested in these matters, would be only too glad to be able to make a statement of that kind before his agricultural friends. It would not be a sound statement, but it would be a very popular one. This is not a matter of mere figures but of fundamental principle. I think it is fundamentally wrong to spend any of our taxpayers' money in advertising competitive produce, whether from our Imperial Dominions or elsewhere, as against our farmers' produce.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)
My Lords, I would like to add one word in reply to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord. I quite agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, that we ought to do nothing which is inimical to the interests of British agriculture, but we have of course to consider the interests of British agriculture and the interests of British trade. We have also to consider the interests of our Dominions. 598 I take British agriculture and British trade first. I am not a doctrinaire Free Trader like the two noble Lords. We believe that it is a distinct benefit to this country to receive the preferences which our Dominions give us. They are extremely valuable to the trade of this country, but it is not unnatural that the Dominions should expect some reciprocal advantage from this country if they give preferences. That was apparent to the representatives of the then Government Who formed part of the Imperial Conference in 1923 and, in return for the preferences which were granted by the Dominions and which were extremely valuable, certain preferences were promised by the British Government.
It was, however, found impossible to implement that pledge for the reasons which have been stated. The General Election decided against those preferences. It then became incumbent upon us to find some other method of reciprocal treatment in return for these very valuable preferences which the Dominions gave us. I have nothing to say, of course, if the noble Lords opposite do not value the preferences that the Dominions gave us. That is simply a broad difference of opinion between us. I believe the manufacturing community of this country agree with the Government that those preferences are very valuable. It was incumbent upon us to find some reciprocal arrangement and this Empire Marketing Board was the arrangement hit upon with a view to making good what was omitted in consequence of the General Election which followed the Imperial Conference of 1923.
That was the situation and undoubtedly there was a very reasonable feeling, which was eloquently voiced in the speech with which the noble Lord opposite opened the debate this afternoon, on the part of the British agricultural community, that they ought not to be left out if there was to be this Empire Marketing Fund for the benefit of Empire trade. They made a strong and convincing case, and consequently British agriculture was joined with the other Empire interests and the Empire Marketing Fund was consequently to be devoted not merely to research and advertising in respect of Empire produce, but of British produce also; and I think really the presence of my noble friend, 599 the Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, upon the Empire Marketing Board, was because that very complaint was made. He represents British agriculture on the Board, and that appears to be a very reasonable arrangement. You have the Empire Marketing Fund for the sake of the Empire, but you do not allow British agriculture to be left out in the cold. You put a representative on the Board and see that everybody is treated fairly under the arrangement. That is broadly the policy which the Government have pursued, and I think it is a reasonable policy.
I would suggest to noble Lords opposite that although we must do our very utmost, as I have already said, for British agriculture and British trade, we must also consider the interests of the Dominions. No one who has been to the Dominions, as I have had the honour of going, can fail to be conscious that it is vital to keep up the solidarity of our interests with the Dominions. They cannot be ignored, and ought not to be ignored, and every point that we can stretch in their favour ought to be stretched, so long as we do not injure British trade. Of course the people who ought to suffer, if I may say so, and the people whom we intend to suffer, are the foreign traders—the importers from foreign countries. We wish them to suffer, not per se, not because be dislike them, but because we think the produce of our own Dominions and of our own country ought to be preferred before them. That is our policy.
Let me take an example given by the noble Lord, who mentioned the case of fruit. He seemed to forget that fruit produced in Australia and South Africa is produced at a totally different time of year to fruit produced here. He forgets the difference of latitude. The result is that there ought to be no real competition between Empire fruit, so far as it is produced in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and fruit grown in this country. If I remember aright that was the point urged upon me when I was in Australia at about this time last year. That is just an example of how, by a little adjustment, you can give a preference and help Dominion produce without injuring in any respect the produce of our own country. I would like noble Lords 600 opposite to approach this subject in this spirit—namely, that of doing our utmost for the Dominions so long as we do not injure the produce of this country. If they will approach the subject in that way I think they will come to the conclusion that there is justification for the policy which we have pursued.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I had not intended to take part in the discussion, nor should I do so but for the appeal which has been made to us that we should have regard to the question of preference, and attach more importance to it. I would like to put to the noble Marquess two questions. At the present moment all British goods going into Canada are subject to an average rate of 18 per cent. Goods from all other countries pay an average rate of 15 per cent. Does he call that preference to the goods of this country? The other point is with regard to the Advertising Exhibition which is going on at the present moment. He appealed to us that we should have regard to the produce which the self-governing Dominions send over. Ts it too much to ask that they, in their turn, will allow advertisements of British goods to go into their country at something less than the crushing tariff which Canada proposes to put upon advertisements of British goods? If he will be good enough to put that point to the Department of Overseas Trade if it is to be, and before it is, abolished. I shall be very much obliged.

§ LORD STRACHIE
My Lords, I cannot say that I am satisfied with the refusal of the noble Lord to give a return, because I do not think he has made it very clear to the average person how the money is spent; but I should like to refer to what the Leader of the House said, to the effect that we ought to encourage Colonial goods, without injuring ourselves. Of course I agree with him, but the whole of the gravamen of my complaint was that we are doing exactly the opposite. I do not think the noble Marquess will deny that at the present moment British agriculture is in a serious condition and that this is not the moment when we should spend one penny in getting competition from abroad.
I was surprised at the reference of the noble Marquess to fruit. He did not refer to Canada. Take the case of apples. The Empire Marketing Board is spending 601 money on an office in Liverpool to enable Canadian apples to be sold in this country. I happen to be a large grower of apples, and I am constantly being told to put my apples on the market at once, because if I do not I shall have Canadian apples rushing in and bringing the prices down. This applies also in the case of apples from Australia and New Zealand. I have good storage, and I could keep ripples for six months or more, but I cannot keep them because in that case I should get Australian and New Zealand apples, which are advertised all over the country, coining into competition with my own. I say that it is not fair that money should be spent on advertising at the cost of the British taxpayer, to enable these apples to come in and compete with home produce. How on earth the noble Marquess can say that it does not injure the home trade to advertise the goods of your competitors I cannot conceive. I am entirely dissatisfied with the reply, and must press my Motion.

§ On Question, Motion negatived.