Lords Sitting of 7 November 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2ª.
ROAD TRAFFIC LEGISLATION.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity, with the permission of the Leader of the House, to say that, owing perhaps to the misapprehension of a conversation, he suggested yesterday that the Road Traffic Bill might be ready next week. I think I ought to tell your Lordships that I fear there is no chance of its being ready until the week after next.

HONITON, OTTERY ST. MARY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929. SOUTH SOMERSET AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KNEBWORTH WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

DUMPING OF BOUNTY-FED CEREALS.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they deem it to be to the advantage of any section of the British community that foreign bounty-fed wheat and oats should be dumped from abroad upon British markets at less than the cost of their production either here or abroad, with consequent complete disheartenment to British arable farmers at a time of almost unprecedented agricultural depression; and, if not, whether they regard themselves as impotent, by diplomatic representation or otherwise, to check the process before further autumn cereal sowings are abandoned and further discharges of labour on arable farms take place; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting to His Majesty's Government the Question which appears upon the Paper, I should like at the outset to make it perfectly clear that I am animated by no hostility to the present Government, even if I find it necessary to ask your Lordships to divide upon the Motion for Papers. I would also venture to hope that the debate, if discussion there be, will be free from all Party bias and especially from old-time fiscal controversies, in the endeavour to help the

447
Government to find a solution for a problem of the utmost gravity to our rural population. This, indeed, was the spirit in which, on Wednesday of last week, the subject was discussed in another place in a debate which was remarkable for the earnestness of the speeches, for the degree of knowledge which was displayed by so many speakers, including very particularly Mr. Wise, one of the Members for Leicester, for the universal recognition by members of that House of the extreme gravity of the present position, and, above all, for the impressive unanimity of the desire on the part of all Parties to find some solution to this difficult problem in a spirit of friendly co-operation. Of course, as your Lordships are aware, the agricultural community today—it is no good disguising the fact—is thoroughly distrustful of political Parties. I am quite sure that any one who seeks the suffrages of farmers or agricultural workers in any part at least of England and Wales, and very particularly in East Anglia and the South of England, finds that his would be supporters regard themselves as having been deceived so often by promises made on behalf of different Parties and see themselves sinking so deeply into a slough of economic despond, that it is very hard to convince them that any one Party in preference to the others has a particular claim upon their sympathy.
I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships' House for recurring to a subject which was discussed as late as February 14 last in this House, on a Question raised by my noble friend Lord Harris. My excuse must be the increased seriousness of the outlook consequent upon this dumping of foreign bread-stuffs upon our markets at less than the cost of production either in the countries of origin or in this country, and the deep anxiety amounting almost to panic on the part of the whole agricultural population of all classes; and, if I may be allowed to say so, above all the inconclusive and disheartening response of the present Minister of Agriculture to the debate in another place and also, on the following day, in a speech which he made at the meeting of the National Council of Agriculture for England.
The process to which my Question refers, and of which we are in this
448
country the unfortunate victims, was very clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Ernle and also by Lord Stradbroke who was then representing the Ministry of Agriculture on the Government Front Bench, when the matter was brought before the House in February last. To put it quite briefly, it consists of the issue of Government licences, or negotiable warrants, to the exporters of soft wheats, such as we grow in this country, in East Germany, which are sold to the importers of hard wheats such as Manitoban and other like strong wheats in West Germany, which enables the latter to counteract partially the effect of the import duty which, as your Lordships know, is levied upon grain entering that country, and in fact of providing a subsidy of no less than 13 s. 10 d. per quarter to the German wheat exporter. The same system applies to barley and oats with varying rates of subsidy. I may say that at the present time the competition, as I would suggest unfair competition, in this matter is more serious in the case of oats than it is in the case of wheat. I have reason to believe that the growers of oats in Scotland are at least as much disturbed by this dumping of that particular cereal at less than cost of production as we are in many districts in England in respect of wheat.
The market price of English wheat and oats being already very low in this country, and leaving a bare margin, if any, of profit to the British wheat grower, this dumping process has in several of our most important markets, notably in the East of England, driven the price unfairly below what we now regard as the datum level of 10 s. per cwt. I say the datum level because that has, by many experts, been taken to be the level below which, with the present cost of wages and the raw materials of production, it is impossible to grow wheat at a profit in this country except on the very best wheat land. The result is that English growers of wheat have, in spite of remarkably bountiful harvests both last season and this, been landed in disastrous financial losses at a time when the agricultural industry is more depressed than it has been since the early 'nineties of the last century, and with far less hope or prospect of recovery than there was then. As your Lordships will remember, there was towards the end of last century and in the early years

449
of this century a marked revival of agricultural prosperity, with improving values for all cereals and particularly wheat. Now, of course, with a much heavier cost of production, particularly in the matter of wages, prices have fallen to a level at which I think all your Lordships must admit there is very little prospect of the ordinary farmer, even if he be an experienced farmer, securing any margin of profit.
And it does not apply only to cereals. I think it is rather difficult to say in relation to any crop, except possibly sugar beet, which under the initiative of a Labour Government receives a subsidy which enables many Eastern county farmers to live under conditions in which they would otherwise find it difficult to do so, that there appears to be any at the present time which can confidently be said to leave a margin of profit to its grower. Last year it would be perfectly correct to say that in the case of wheat, and this year in the case of both wheat and potatoes, there is better value to the grower in feeding those products of the soil to his livestock than to attempt to sell them in British markets for human consumption. In other words, to use the popular expression, it is better to send wheat and potatoes, and possibly barley also, to market on four legs rather than market it in the usual way for the purpose of human food.
You may very probably ask: "Why do you raise this question so soon after it has been under discussion in your Lordships' House?" The position is materially worse than it was at the time of our last discussion, or at this time last year, owing to the larger quantities of dumped wheat, much larger quantities than were entering our markets, or certain of our markets, a year ago, and owing to the greater difficulty of farmers, with the present price of all cereals, to secure any margin of profit when the process that I have described has the unfortunate effect of lowering the price in these markets of those cereals by something like 3s. 6d. or 4s. a quarter. The difference between the imports of dumped bounty-fed German wheat a year ago is represented by the figures of 22,500 quarters as at August 1, 1928. and 590,000 quarters at August 1 last, or roughly, 26 times as
450
much this year as was the case a year ago. As last year so also this year, in consequence British wheat in certain markets has fallen by 3s. 6d. to 4s. per quarter. To the suggestion that this has a serious effect upon our grain markets it has been said, in reply in another place that this importation represents 8 per cent. only of the amount of wheat raised normally upon our own farms, and a much smaller percentage of the whole wheat consumption of this country. Though admittedly it is a small percentage, it represents, I suggest, a very dangerous trend which threatens to reduce our leading industry to a state of bankruptcy, and deprive large numbers of agricultural workers of their normal employment.
We are told that this process has been going on for years. I believe, as a matter of fact, it dates from the year 1901. The process continued until the War, when of course there was an interval, and it was revived again after the War, I think about four or five years ago. I hope your Lordships will agree that whether the process can be stopped or not, it has always been an unfortunate process and, as prices fall gradually below an economic level, is bound to become intolerable. The Minister of Agriculture announced three days ago in the House of Commons, in answer to a Question, that the arable area of this country, which has been dwindling for many years past, has actually shrunk during the last two years by an area of no less than 330,000 acres, which I believe I am right in saying is about 12½ per cent. of the remaining arable area of the country. This, of course, inevitably involves the laying down or tumbling down of arable land to grass, and a consequent reduction in the employment of farm workers. I have reason to know how serious this process is because amongst other farms which it is my misfortune to be farming at the present time, I have one of no less than 1,300 acres in South Wiltshire containing 700 acres of arable land.
It is inevitable, in a case like that, that land must be laid down to grass, and not only I but many of my neighbouring farmers are laying down land to grass so far as is possible with a very limited availability of water, which, of course, governs the possibility of effectively

451
laying down land to grass that has previously been under arable cultivation. Greatly though we all regret the discharge of agricultural labour it is inevitable, under those conditions, that agricultural labour should be discharged, including a quite considerable number of perfectly competent, capable men whom one would like to see in regular agricultural employment. This process is undoubtedly being greatly accelerated this autumn. It is because some of us are still considering what our policy is going to be now at what I may call the beginning of the new agricultural year that I raise this question particularly at the present time This process of laying down land to grass is undoubtedly being accelerated this autumn by the disheartenment and lack of confidence that has been occasioned by the continuous dumping of bounty-fed cereals raised by low-priced or what we sometimes call sweated labour in foreign countries.
I confess that for the time being the dumping of bounty-fed wheat from Germany has been discontinued. It is discontinued for a very interesting reason, and a reason which I wish would operate effectively in the minds of successive Governments in this country as suggestive of one small step at least which they themselves might take to improve the agricultural position. This import has abated owing to the German Government having recently increased from 40 to 50 per cent. the amount of home-grown wheat which in that country it is compulsory to incorporate in the native loaf. For many years past it has been German policy to insist upon a due proportion of the soft wheat such as we ourselves raise in this country entering into the German loaf in combination, of course, with the harder, stronger, more glutinous varieties that come from across the Atlantic. That percentage in Germany has lately been increased by ten and so has absorbed to quite an appreciable extent the amount of exported bounty-fed wheat that was going to other countries.
But we are threatened—and this is a point I should very much like to emphasise in this debate—with similar importations of breadstuffs from other countries, notably in the form of flour from France. In the latest Mark Lane prices quoted in the columns of that
452
excellent agricultural newspaper the Farmer and Stockbreeder only two days ago, there occurred the following paragraph—
"French flour is coming over in great volume and spoiling the price of country Hour made from all-English wheat."
Only yesterday, in that important wheat-growing area of Huntingdonshire around St. Neots, and I think around Huntingdon also, Messrs. Jordan & Addington, the large millers, of St. Neots and Ramsey, issued this statement, which I may call official:—
"We are strongly of the opinion that this French flour is entirely responsible for the dull market for English flour which has existed for some weeks. We find it in competition, with our flour all over London, and it is impossible to produce English flour at anywhere near the same price."
That means a price the same as that at which the French flour is sold in our market. They go on to say:—
"We believe the price of English flour would advance the moment the supplies of French flour ceased. The forward market is equally hopeless as buyers are unwilling to commit themselves when this flour can be bought for two months ahead at the same price."
Then they print in large black letters this paragraph:—
"It it difficult to over-estimate the harm that the unrestricted entry of French flour has done to the English and manufactured article, and with it the price of English wheat."
Another firm writing from Sawbridgeworth, in Hertfordshire, Messrs. Thomas Burton, Limited, a very well known milling firm, say:—
"French flour can be bought in London to-day at 29 s. 6d. per sack, 280 lbs., c.i.f. Tin's is in direct competition with certain grades of English flour, and, therefore, has the effect of reducing the price of English wheat."
May I incidentally mention that the price of English wheat to-day is just on the borderline of 10 s. per cwt. in many markets and during the last weeks it has fallen below that level. They go on to say:—
"To enable a miller to manufacture all-English flour at this price he would require to buy his wheat at under 40 s. per quarter, the local farmers complain that the importation of this flour does have a serious effect upon the price that they can obtain for their wheat."
In the House of Commons in the debate that took place last week what was

453
stressed, and properly stressed, in view of the experience of the previous three months, was the serious effect of the dumping of German wheat, but I am inclined to believe that this dumping of French flour is having at least as great an adverse effect upon the flour market and upon home-raised wheat.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is there a bounty on the French flour?
LORD BLEDISLOE: My noble friend near me asks me whether there is a bounty on the French flour. I am wholly unable to ascertain whether there is a bounty or not, but I am given to understand from some newspaper statement that the same advantages which have been provided by the German Government to their wheat growers are contemplated to be provided by the French Government for those who raise wheat and sell flour in other markets.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): May I ask the noble Lord whether that means that so far as his inquiries went there is no special bounty at the present time?
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am quite prepared to accept that from the noble and learned Lord. I take it that he speaks with knowledge which I unfortunately cannot claim.
LORD PARMOOR: No, I did not say that. I thought the noble Lord said that a bounty was contemplated, but that so far as he knew there was no bounty at the present time. I asked only in the interests of accuracy. You must not take my authority for it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not think that, for the purposes of my argument, it is really of importance, because if there is no bounty upon this wheat that is coming from France to-day, undoubtedly there is in contemplation a bounty, or other Governmental processes, which will enable the French growers and millers to get all the advantages that are provided for those in a similar position in Germany. I think your Lordships may take it that, if there is not a bounty now, there will be a bounty in the course of the next few weeks.
Speaking in another place in reference to wheat, Mr. Noel Buxton mentioned the fact that the imports of German
454
wheat were less to-day than they were three or four years ago. In that connection, it may be useful to remind your Lordships that three or four years ago the price of wheat was so much above what I might call the economic datum that the effects of the imports from Germany still left a margin of profit for the grower. But at the present time these imports of wheat from Germany are occurring at a moment when the value of wheat in our own markets is so low that any such reduction of value renders it quite impossible for our own farmers to raise that crop at a profit. But, whatever may have been the case with regard to imports of German wheat in those years, the same cannot be said with regard to French flour. The imports of French Hour have been going on for some years past and have progressively increased. I have certain official figures in relation to these imports. In 1927, during a period of nine months—I suppose these are the months during which imports normally take place—the importation amounted to 55,480 cwts.; in 1928 they were 72,350 cwts.; and in the present year they were no less than 322,000 cwts. It will be seen, therefore, that the imports of French flour are going steadily and progressively up.
A report from Mark Lane in this connection says:—
"From this it will be seen how alarmingly the quantities of French flour received have increased. The position becomes the more uneasy when it is borne in mind that France is now considering the adoption of a warrant system"—
this confirms what I ventured to say just now—
"similar to that in existence in Germany. Under this bon d'importation"—
I do not know that we should regard it as a bon d'importation—
"French millers would be dumping bounty-fed flour; in other words, they would be in a position to make considerable cuts in their prices at no pecuniary loss to themselves. As with German wheat, all the pecuniary loss would fall on the British producer."
That, I think, will be quite sufficient to convince your Lordships that, in regard to German wheat and French flour, not to mention cereals that are threatening to come under a similar system from other foreign countries, the position is a serious one and the trend is becoming extremely dangerous.

455
I hope I shall not be regarded as being in any way hostile to the present Minister of Agriculture, who is personally an old friend of mine and whose friendship I value, if I suggest that the sort of statements that were made in reply to the debate in another place indicated a bankruptcy of statesmanship in face of a situation which he himself described as "most regrettable and most damaging" and as a "phenomenon" which is "deplorable." I have culled four paragraphs out of his speech which I will venture to read to your Lordships. He said:—
"I am afraid that I cannot accept the Motion. It urges not only that measures should be taken to counteract the effect upon British agriculture of the dumping of German wheat, but that immediate steps should be taken."
I am bound to say that, after the facts that I have myself presented to your Lordships, it must be admitted that if steps are going to be taken the sooner they are taken the better. He went on to say:—
"I cannot see…how immediate steps can possibly be taken explicitly to counteract an effect which, I agree, is most regrettable and most damaging."
Later on he said:—
"May I say, as I have already said to the National Farmers' Union, that I sympathise most deeply, as we all do, with the corn growers in this country who are suffering from the effects of German subsidies, which are downright subsidies"—
the Minister himself admits it—
"in a peculiar form. The phenomenon is deplorable, and it is the more deplorable because there is something artificial and, in a sense, unfair as it appears to us in that kind of subsidy. I wish most sincerely that we could find a remedy."
Here is the right hon. gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Government now in power, expressing the deepest sympathy, describing the process as deplorable, and adding:—
"I wish most sincerely that we could find a remedy."
It is almost pathetic. He goes on to say:—
"So far as activity goes in what we regard as feasible and sound economic directions, I can assure the House that we are working to the utmost of our energy in one marketing reform in particular—namely, the promotion of standardisation which has the support of all Parties."
Speaking of the Anglo-German Treaty, he goes on to say:—
456
"The Mover of the Resolution said today that we might very well allow the Treaty to lapse and make a new Treaty. That assumes that the Treaty is one which normally ceases and has to be renewed. It so happens that that is not the case. The Treaty is one which stands permanently till denounced by either Party."
Then he went on to say that the Government did not wish to denounce the Treaty. He added:—
"It is a Treaty that is considered to be of extreme value. It gives us advantages which we would not sacrifice at any cost."
He did not indicate what those advantages were, but I think your Lordships will agree with me when I suggest that, in the present deplorable condition of our wheat-growing areas, we are justified in asking what those advantages are which materially outweigh the disaster which this dumping of foreign cereals is causing to the agricultural community.
We have in our English law and Constitution a saying that where there is a just claim there is always a remedy—Ubi jus, ibi remedium. Therefore if we all admit, and apparently every Party admits, and the Government admit, that there is a reasonable claim here for some redress on the part of the agricultural community, surely it is up to the Government to find the remedy. The National Farmers' Union, through the able pen of Mr. Rowland Robbins, has addressed a very interesting letter to The Times, which appeared in its columns this morning, and he asks there certain questions which I should like specifically to put to the Government, on behalf of the National Farmers' Union, of which for many years, being a large farmer, I have been a member.
These questions are as follows: First: How would it constitute an infringement of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty if a countervailing duty to the amount of the Government subsidy were imposed upon all bounty-fed imports, whether they come from Germany or from any other country? Of course, your Lordships will realise that you cannot under this Treaty, which contains a most-favoured-nation clause, differentiate between one country and another; but supposing you treat all foreign imports of bounty-fed cereal produce in the same way? Surely you do nothing which is repugnant to the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty? The second question is

457
this: How can it be shown that such an attempt to restore true Free Trade would result in any increase whatever, at the present time, in the price of bread, seeing that the market price of the loaf has remained wholly unaffected by such imports, which, as the Minister has shown, represent at present a trifling percentage of the whole of the twenty-eight million quarters imported into Great Britain? Of course we are all Free Traders, or at any rate all active politicians pretend or purport to be Free Traders—perhaps in some cases for a happy continuance of their political activities. However that may be, we are glad to call ourselves, or those at any rate who speak with any authority—I do not claim to do so myself—profess to be Free Traders. I should like to ask whether this is Free Trade, and whether it is consistent with the principles of Free Trade, and corresponds to any proper definition of Free Trade? I can understand that a tariff is a particular advantage to a particular commodity raised in the country, and sought to be protected by a tariff. I can understand also, conditions being equal, that Free Trade is defensible as a system under which commodities come in and go out without any restraint, except possibly for purposes of revenue. But it can scarcely be pretended that where you have bounty-fed produce coming in from a foreign country, raised under sweated labour, and placed upon our markets, that that is consistent with Free Trade. I have never heard any definition of Free Trade which would include such a process as that.
Then, finally, what are the advantages given by the Treaty which may be deemed to outweigh the injury inflicted upon arable cultivation in Great Britain? Before I sit down I should like to endorse those questions, and to beg the Government to give some reply to them, if they can. Supposing that the specific remedy suggested by the National Farmers' Union is not feasible, I should like, with every desire to help the Government in overcoming their difficulty, to suggest the possibility as alternatives of either (1) prohibiting altogether the importation of foreign bounty-fed cereals during at least those months of the year following harvest, when our farmers, owing to their attenuated resources, are bound to
458
throw their produce upon the market; or (2) as possibly a first step in the present nebulous Government scheme of setting up a Wheat Import Board for stabilising prices to both the producer and the consumer alike, of themselves purchasing foreign bounty-fed cereals when their market value is below the British cost of production, and holding them, with ultimate profit to the Exchequer, until they can be marketed at a price which will bring some margin of profit to the British producer. A noble friend, sitting near me, says: "Suppose there is a loss"; but it was pointed out in the other House, by the right honourable gentleman the Minister for Agriculture himself, that there cannot be a loss, and in fact they have urged the British farmers not to trouble about this dumped wheat because, seeing the imports are seasonable, and according to the Government the price of wheat is bound to rise later in the year, if only farmers will hold on to their wheat there is no reason why they should sell it at a loss.
The whole answer to that is that in the present condition of the farming community they cannot afford to hold on to their wheat, and in order to pay current expenses have to sell it immediately after the harvest. If they can hold for a rise, why do not the Government do it, as a first step in their scheme for stabilising the prices of meat and wheat? As another means of ameliorating the position, and as a part of the Government scheme, I sincerely hope as regards flour that they will not only follow the German example of insisting upon a due percentage of British flour being incorporated in all British loaves, but will put a definite stop to breadstuffs being imported into this country in the form of flour, rather than in the form of wheat, and thus keep British mills running, with a full complement of labour, and render available, at a lower price than to-day, larger quantities of milling offals, which British stock-owners require for feeding their stock. There have been times—there was one at the early part of this year—when the cost of milling offals required for farm stock was higher in the British market than the cost of the whole wheat or flour itself. Offals to a large extent dominate the price of all animal feeding stuffs, and if the milling of

459
foreign wheat is done in this country we shall get the benefit for our stock.
In conclusion, I may say that I have more than once criticised the suggestion of the so-called stabilising of the price of meat and wheat and of setting up an Import Board, and I have criticised it because I have myself had the experience of purchasing on a very large scale during the War an essential commodity, that is, sugar, for the requirements of the country and of our Forces overseas. I do not think there is any one who has taken part in that process but would look with some apprehension upon such a system being re-established, as inevitably sending up at times the cost of these commodities in the world market against the Government, and enhancing the cost of those necessaries of life to the British consumer. Moreover, I think there is a real danger, at a time when we want to have a fuller sympathy between the urban population on the one hand and the rural population OH the other, of stereotyping political differences between them, their interests being regarded as different.
But although personally I have held those prejudices, rather than adopt a policy of negation, which is the policy which is being adopted to-day—and I say so in no hostile spirit—at a time when agricultural depression is very serious indeed, I for my part am quite prepared to assist the Government if they care to make use of such abilities as I may possess in establishing this Wheat Import Board of which they have so often spoken, and in helping them in every possible way without any hostile criticism to make that system a success. Because I feel the time has arrived when almost any system which a responsible Government consider is worth trying in order to bring back some measure of hope to the agricultural community in this country should be tried, and that, rather than do nothing at all, I for my part would most warmly support any attempt made by way of experiment to put the system of which they have vaguely spoken so much into actual operation.
Now, my Lords, I move for Papers. I am in some difficulty to know what Papers to ask for, but there are certainly two documents which I should like to see laid, if they can be made available. One is a copy of the diplomatic communications
460
which have passed between our Foreign Office and Germany, asking for the abandonment of the process of dumping bounty-fed cereals on our markets to the injury of our agricultural population—and there I assume that, quite apart from the Treaty altogether, a Government which is so friendly disposed to our agricultural industry must in a friendly spirit have approached the proper Department in Germany to ask that this process, which is doing so much harm to-day, shall abate. The second document I ask for is a copy of the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty, with an accompanying statement showing the advantages which it confers on this country which outweigh its disastrous effect upon our own agricultural industry.
Far be it from me to depreciate, to undervalue, or minimise efforts which are being made by this Government, as they were made by the last Government, to ameliorate the condition of our depressed agricultural industry. I may mention, for example, the process of derating, the improvement of the marketing system, in respect of which we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the very able officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, notably Mr. Street, who have brought an enormous amount of valuable knowledge in regard to the marketing of agricultural produce to our farming community, the marking with a National Mark of home-raised foods of various descriptions, the encouragement of co-operation, the encouragement of research and education—and in this connection perhaps I may be allowed to say how deeply some of us deplore the death of Mr. T. B. Wood, announced in the Press this morning—and other well-intentioned methods of trying to improve the agricultural situation.
But I venture to say that all those methods, plausible and convincing though they are, do not touch the bedrock cause of the growing lack of confidence, the hopelessness, and depression of our agricultural community. This particular problem does; and if the present Government, with such help as the other Parties can give it—and I believe that in this House, as in the House of Commons, there is a real desire to co-operate with the Labour Government—can do anything to bring nearer a solution of these problems it is by

461
dealing with such a situation as is caused by this dumping of cheap bounty-fed produce from abroad. There you are really getting to the whole root of the big agricultural problem, which has got to be faced, if not now, sometime in the early future if the agricultural industry of this country is going to survive to the lasting benefit of the nation. I beg to move.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, for raising this Question and for giving us an opportunity of discussing it. I think that he has really explained the situation very clearly to your Lordships. When we come to think of it, there is really no one who should be able to do so better than the noble Lord. If we look back into the history of this subject we find that the year when there was the greatest quantity of wheat imports from Germany into this country was 1926, when the noble Lord himself was partly responsible for the policy at the Ministry of Agriculture. I only refer to this point because the noble Lord has made a charge of bankruptcy of statesmanship against the present Ministry of Agriculture, and I think if only fair to say that it is a charge, in so far as it is justified—and I hope that I shall be able to show that it is not justified—which can be made with equal strength both against him and the noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke, who answered for the Government last year. It is perfectly true that the Minister of Agriculture did appeal for help and consultation from all members of the industry. Personally I could not help welcoming that sign that he had an open mind and behind it the determination to do whatever could be found to be practicable. After all, that appeal cannot be said to have been made entirely in vain when, within a week of its being made, an agriculturist of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has come forward in the way that he has to-day and made that most generous effort of open-minded assistance to the present Minister of Agriculture.
I think the noble Lord has really made the point at issue quite clear to your Lordships. Your Lordships are all aware, I have no doubt, of the system by
462
which these German wheats and oats are being imported into this country under a system of import bounties. Let me try to make it quite clear by giving you an actual example in hypothetical figures. Let us suppose that A imports 100 quarters of foreign wheat at 40 s. a quarter—I give round figures—and pays 14 s. or 15 s. duty. B exports 50 quarters at the same price and receives a licence entitling him to import an equivalent amount free of duty. This licence he can sell to A, the importer, and the sum that he obtains for that licence he can use for any purpose he pleases; but, presumably, at the moment he is using it to reduce the price of the wheat which he imports. So far as it goes in its effect, this system undoubtedly appears at the present moment to have had serious results.
The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has suggested that it might be possible to modify the situation by means of diplomatic representations to the German Government, and he put three questions on that point. The first was, how would the imposition of a countervailing duty in this country infringe the Anglo-German Treaty? He also incidentally asked how-it would infringe Free Trade principles. The latter question I do not think is really worth discussing, because even the Government that held office a year ago admittedly, in principle, believed in Protection and even they were unwilling to consider such a proposition. But how would it infringe the Anglo-German Treaty? Let me read to your Lordships the exact provision of that Treaty which deals with this matter:—
"Articles produced or manufactured in the territories of one of the two contracting parties imported into the territories of the other from whatever place arising, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles "—
on the like articles!—
"produced or manufactured in any foreign country."
Your Lordships will realise that there is nothing in the Treaty that would entitle the British Government to regard wheat exported with the advantage of a bounty as not being a like article to wheat in general. Therefore, attractive as the proposition might seem from some points of view, it is quite out of the question. The third question was: Why would it

463
not pay us to denounce this Treaty? What are the advantages that we gain from it that make it necessary for us to continue the arrangement?
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Earl will excuse me; that was not quite the form of my question. My question was: What are the advantages given by the Treaty which may be deemed to outweigh the admitted injury inflicted upon arable cultivation in Great Britain?
EAER DE LA WARR: I apologise to the noble Lord. This Treaty not only prevents the British Government from imposing a differential duty on goods from Germany, but also prohibits the German Government from imposing a differential duty against any of the goods which are exported from this country to Germany. Those goods are coal, amongst others, and made-up clothing and machinery. I regret I cannot give the noble Lord the exact figures of the value of those imports and compare them with the exact figures of the imports of wheat from Germany; but I think it is clear that it is only necessary to mention those three articles—coal, machinery, and made-up clothing—to make your Lordships realise that they would in the aggregate come to a very much larger sum than the one we are dealing with at the present moment.
I do not wish to belittle the problem or attempt to explain it away; but there are several factors which we cannot ignore. For one, we must certainly face the fact that it is possible to exaggerate the size of this problem. The movement of grain from Germany is only seasonal. Germany is a grain-exporting country for part of the year; for other parts of the year she is importing and her exports are balanced by her imports. This may not protect a particular local market, I admit, from the damaging effect of imports at a particular time; but it undoubtedly levels out the effect of these movements on world supplies and world prices. Secondly, the movements from Germany have been accentuated during the last two years by exceptional conditions. The shortage of capital has encouraged her to take full advantage of the temporary relief obtained by exporting grain against later imports, and the good harvest she has enjoyed has enabled her to do this to a very much greater extent than usual.
464
In addition to this, we must realise that the situation that is under discussion to-day is not a new situation. The system was in existence before the War and has been operating since the end of the War. Indeed, it has already been mentioned that in 1926 the imports of wheat were actually greater than they are to-day. The figures are 180,000 tons in twelve months as compared with 120,000 tons in the last eleven months. Yet prices then were not so seriously affected, I admit. Actually, the highest average price from 1922 to 1929 was during the year 1926, when German imports were at their highest. Surely, that points to the truth of what I am saying—that it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this single aspect of the question. Before saying more on this point, I would like to make one statement. According to the latest market reports, little if any wheat or oats is now arriving in this country. The change in the position is attributed to an increase from 40 to 50 per cent., and the noble Lord has already mentioned this fact, of the proportion of German home-grown wheat which the German Government stipulates for flour mills in Germany. How far this higher German demand will affect the question in the long run I would not venture to say, but it will certainly give us time to consider the situation afresh, and it is an encouraging omen.
Let me go back to my last point. I am trying to point out that this is only one aspect of a far more general problem. It is probably because Governments have hitherto regarded it as a question which must be dealt with by itself that they have failed to find any solution. The limitation of their thoughts was typified by Lord Stradbroke's speech last February when he told us that—
"the only way of meeting this complaint…would either be by putting a differential duty on German wheat or by the prohibition of imports of German wheat. Your Lordships will realise that neither of those steps is practicable."
He was quite right as far as he went. It is recognised by all Parties that it is impossible to take any steps that will raise the price of food to the consumer, but his statement showed that his Government did not realise that there is nothing at the present moment to prevent other countries doing the same thing as Germany

465
is doing to-day, though possibly in other ways. That point was made by the noble Lord himself about France. It has been pointed out in another place that the effect of the American Farm Board Bill may well be to enable the United States of America to stabilise her internal wheat price by dumping her surplus at any price in this country. The same applies to Canada. Canada with her great pool may at any time find herself forced to unload wheat at prices which are ruinous to our producers here.
The task of the Government, therefore, is not merely to consider the particular aspect of the question that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, but to attempt to find a permanent solution and a general solution by taking into account the present conditions of the cereal trade, not only in this country but in the whole world. This, of course, will take time. In certain respects the cereal trade is highly organised to-day; in others it is chaotic. It is all very well to remind the Minister of Agriculture of the policy of the Labour Party with regard to the stabilisation of prices by means of Import Boards. In another place many members of all Parties did so, and the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has referred to that to-day. We welcome the fact that so many Conservatives are at last becoming interested in this aspect of an important subject. If only their Government could have been interested months or even years ago, there might now have been some material for us to work upon, but there is none. The question has not been considered since 1824, with the result that if, as a minority Government, we attempt the passage of what must be a very controversial measure, there is an immense amount of inquiry and preparation to be carried out before any legislation could be put forward.
The existing interests will have to be consulted and brought in. The farmers, the millers, the importers and the consumers have all their own separate points of view, and it is only by meeting and considering these points of view that it could be hoped to accomplish anything, especially in the existing state of political affairs. And in addition to agreement in those quarters we should need every ounce of real and sincere
466
enthusiasm for non-Party action in regard to agriculture which Lord Bledisloe and others have been advocating for some time. If it were possible to carry through such a measure during the life of this or another Parliament it would probably provide a solution to our difficulties in the cereal trade, for, as Lord Bledisloe has already pointed out, the Import Board would buy at the dumping or subsidised prices, but it would be under no obligation to allow the commodities on to the market at those prices. I have said that our policy of Import Boards would provide a solution to this problem with which we are faced, but it is almost out of the question for a minority Government to apply such a drastic remedy without the support of the other political Parties and even of the industry itself.
We know that there are three possible lines of action—first, the imposition of a duty; second, total prohibition of imports; and, third, the setting up of an Import Board. The last Government felt themselves unable to carry through either of the first two solutions, and they were unwilling even to consider the third. The result was that they did nothing. The position is now reversed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: You are not going to do anything.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are unwilling to impose a duty or to prohibit imports. We have no evidence that either Parliament or the industry is likely to support the setting up of an Import Board.
LORD HASTINGS: Have you made up your mind not to prohibit the import of flour? You have not dealt with the import of flour apart from the import of wheat.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I ought to have notice of that question, because it has not been referred to.
LORD HASTINGS: Lord Bledisloe did refer to it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I mean it is not upon the Paper. I think it is quite safe to say that our policy with regard to flour would be the same as that with regard to wheat, but I speak subject to correction. We have no evidence that either Parliament or the industry is likely

467
to support setting up an Import Board. But if the Conservative Government with a majority felt themselves unable to carry out their policy with the support of the country, it is clearly not easy for the Labour Government in a minority to do so now. It is, therefore, for members of the Opposition in Parliament, and for those in the agricultural industry, to show that they are prepared, as the noble Lord has to-day, to reconsider their hitherto hostile attitude towards our policy. Failing that, we are entitled to ask them for their proposals for dealing with a problem which a year ago Lord Stradbroke declared to be insoluble. If their minds are working in the same non-Party channels as those of Lord Bledisloe and others in both Houses of Parliament, there is certainly stronger hope than I imagined that some agreement might be arrived at which would lead to eventual constructive action; but I am afraid that no really effective action can be initiated in time to influence the larger problem, though the position regarding the autumn sowings to which Lord Bledisloe referred may be affected by the welcome change in the markets which I have already mentioned. For the moment there is nothing more to be said. I have tried to put the difficulties before you, not from any lack of desire to be helpful, but because it is only by facing those difficulties that they can be overcome. If from this debate emerges a feeling, as I trust it may after the noble Lord's speech, that an agreement along constructive lines, whilst being difficult is not impossible, I feel that your Lordships will have real reason to feel gratified at the result of the debate.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, as far as I could gather from the speech of the noble Earl he proposes to do nothing, and he proposes to do nothing for the following reasons. First of all, the Conservative Government did nothing. That seems to me to be an extremely bad reason, because I was always under the impression that when we had a Socialist Government in office we should be shown how to carry on the government of the country, and how to make this country prosperous instead of a country suffering under the reactionary proposals of the foolish Conservative Government. Now I understand that the Socialist Government is no better
468
than a Conservative Government, and has to take up exactly the same position—namely, that it can do nothing because of certain reasons. That was one of the arguments, and I venture to say a very poor argument, from those Benches put forward by the noble Earl.
The other argument was that this has been going on for some time. What has that to do with it? Suppose an evil has been going on for a long time, are we not to remedy it because it has been going on for a long time? Even I, who am supposed to be a reactionary person—I never quite understood what that is supposed to be except that it is something very bad—have never advanced the argument that because an evil has been going on for ten years you must not touch it. But that was the argument of the noble Earl, or one of his arguments. The rest of the speech may be summed up in one sentence—"We are going to do nothing because the Conservative Government have done nothing." If noble Lords opposite have nothing better to do, I would venture to say that the sooner they inform the country that all their promises were moonshine and that they cannot carry them out the better it will be, because we may then, perhaps, have a change, which will be a very good thing.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships more than a minute or two and I certainly do not rise with the intention of criticising the present Government or the Government that was in office nearly a year ago when I raised this question. I got the same answer as the noble Earl has given from the Earl of Stradbroke—a reply of non possumus, we cannot do anything! Is it not lamentable and deplorable that any Government—I do not care what Government—should enter into relations with foreign Governments in such a way that its hands are so tied that a foreign Government can do injury to any trade in the country without our having the power to retaliate or to protect our industry from injury? I do sincerely trust that the Party now in power will, as the noble Earl suggested, do all in their power to get an agreement upon this question, which I recognise has more difficulties connected with it than other questions, to get some agreement amongst Parties to free this country

469
from the tyranny which it is under. It is an absolute tyranny upon agriculture that we should not be able to grow the food of life here at a moderate profit.
The noble Earl must know from his own experience in Sussex, which is much the same as our experience in Kent, and the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, in his county, that land is rapidly going out of cultivation. It is no good talking about speeding the plough. You cannot speed it if you know there is going to be an inevitable loss every year. In my humble way as a farmer, I am selling horses and discharging men because I cannot go on, and my neighbours are having to do the same. That is a really serious matter in the case of a noble profession such as agriculture is. It is a lamentable thing that men cannot look forward to carrying out the particular cultivation which suits their particular climate because, owing to foreign treaties, the farming profession cannot be made to pay.
LORD HASTINGS: In the very thoughtful contribution which the noble Earl made to this debate he did not feel able without notice to answer my question with regard to the importation of French flour. That is to be regretted; but no doubt the House before long may have other opportunities of considering what are admittedly immense difficulties. May I hope that the noble Earl will seek from the Minister of Agriculture some information so that he may be able to answer a later question?
EARL DE LA WARE: At the moment I feel unable to answer.
LORD HASTINGS: You said the answers were the same.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think our reply would be, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, the same as the last.
LORD HASTINGS: That is not a question of treaties but tariff policy?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, that is not a question of treaties, it is a question of tariff.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think there are any Papers that could be laid that would help the question. The noble Lord may desire to make a reply and he may consider whether it would be worth while to press his Motion for Papers and so possibly interfere with the harmony so much desired.
LORD BLEDISLOE: In so small a House as this to-day I should not like to press this Motion to a Division, but I am bound to say I shall retire from this Chamber with a more than ever disheartened feeling knowing that His Majesty's Government find themselves wholly incapable, even with the help of other Parties who are prepared to help them, of finding a solution of a very serious industrial problem effecting the agricultural community throughout this country.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.