Lords Sitting of 17 May 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH SOMERSET JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Somerset Joint Hospital District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WELLINGTON SALOP) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Wellington in the County of Salop; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WATH SWINTON AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of
926
Health relating to Wath Swinton and District Joint Hospital District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la,—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ELY, HOLLAND AND NORFOLK) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Counties of the Isle of Ely and parts of Holland and Norfolk, and the Borough of Wisbech; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SWANSEA GAS ORDER, 1933.

  ILFRACOMBE GAS ORDER, 1933.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, Swansea Gas Order and Ilfracombe Gas Order, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF QUEEN BOROUGH ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Queenborough, be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Queenborough, and laid before this House on the 2nd instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF WEMBLEY ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that a similar Order with respect to the urban district of Wembley be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Wembley, and laid before this House on the 2nd instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF ROCHESTER ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that a similar Order with respect to the Borough of Rochester be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Rochester, and laid before this House on the 2nd instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WREXHAM AND EAST DEN BIGHSHIRE WATER) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LUTON WATER) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMA TION (MAIDSTONE AND STOCK TON-ON-TEES) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a(according to Order).

ARGENTINE AND DANISH TRADE AGREEMENTS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture whether the alarming figures given in the Daily Express of the 24th April under the headings "Great Meat Muddle" and "Betrayal of the home farmer" are correct, and whether he will explain how agriculture is benefited by the Argentine and Danish Agreements; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Question of mine really divides into two portions. The first part is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture "whether the alarming figures given in the Daily Express of the 24th April under the headings 'Great Meat Muddle' and 'Betrayal of the home farmer' are correct." I do not intend to deal with that question at any length, but I think the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House will agree that those statements were very alarming indeed, and I thought it well to give him an opportunity, if they were not correct, of saying that they were not correct, and of assuring your Lordships that everything had been done for the benefit of British agriculture. After I had put this Question on the Paper the two Agreements with the Argentine and Denmark were laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I mean rather to deal with those Agreements, leaving it to the noble Earl to give an explanation of the Daily Express statements, and I hope he will be able to relieve our anxieties on that point.
I will deal first with the question of Denmark—with what is generally called the Agreement or Pact—and I would like to know what it is that Denmark gains. It seems to me from a statement made in another place that Danish agriculture is dependent upon us for the export of bacon and hams of the value of over

929
£43,000,000. I suppose that that is the whole export front Denmark, and no doubt we are a very valuable market for her. I notice from the Second Schedule of that Agreement that for three years no duty is to be placed upon bacon and, warns, and, with regard to butter, only a duty of 15s. per cwt. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when the Milk Commission referred to butter it said that the lowest tax should be 20s., and so for three years we shall be tieing our hands, and not able to increase that duty from 15s. to the 20s. recommended by the Milk Commission as the minimum impost that ought to be imposed.
Then, again, what happens in return? The importation of coal into Denmark is raised from 58 per cent. to 80 per cent. I rather wonder why, when that was being raised, the Government did not ask for Denmark to go back to the 1925 figure, when it was 85 per cent. I notice that in another place it was contended by the President of the Board of Trade that this was a very valuable export, because it was equal to 1,300,000 tons being exported to Denmark, and represented employment for something like 5,300 miners here. I wonder whether the noble Earl will be able to tell us that these proposals are going to relieve unemployment from the agricultural point of view. He is no doubt well aware that there is a great deal of distress in agriculture in this country, especially in East Anglia. There may be reduction, but there is no increase of duties by the Schedules of the Agreement, on cotton goods, hats, carpets, steel and iron. Now that seems to be very valuable indeed from the Danish point of view, but I do not see where this country comes in from the agricultural point of view. On the other hand, I think the President of the Board of Trade, who has been very clever in making this bargain, also said that you cannot make a bargain without asking people to give up something. I am afraid that what has been given up has been against the interest of agriculture in this country.
Now I will turn to the Argentine Agreement. It is rather interesting that Mt. Runciman said that he would not have anything to do with the agricultural effect, but would only deal with how industry was affected. I am not surprised that in another place he left it to the
930
Ministry of Agriculture, for this very good reason, that for some years Mr. Runciman was President of the Board of Agriculture, now called the Ministry of Agriculture, and thoroughly understands the question, and, no doubt, he did not want to be laid open to attack on the ground that agriculture was going to suffer from these two Agreements. What has happened with regard to the Argentine Agreement? I notice that it is estimated that our capital invested in the Argentine is over £500,000,000. Then the debenture interest on railways is lying frozen in the Argentine banks, and some £6,000,000 of British money are held up in Argentina. We are led to believe that by this Agreement money will be unfrozen and that we shall obtain a great commercial advantage, and that Mr. Runciman has made a very good bargain with the Argentine by releasing this money which was tied up. I have always heard before this Agreement was made that it was the banks which were most anxious that something should be done to release this money—no doubt very properly from their point of view. But I wonder what we are going to get out of this Agreement?
I am very doubtful myself whether we are going to get any advantage at all, but if there is any advantage it will be from quotas. The Minister of Agriculture seems to rely entirely upon the quotas which he has got from the two countries. I wish he would explain why he relies upon quotas and entirely dismisses tariffs. No doubt the noble Earl who will speak for the Government will be able to tell us why the Minister prefers quotas. The Danish quota is 62 per cent. for bacon and ham, and the butter quota is 2,300,000 cwts. which may be increased if the total imports exceed 8,100,000 cwts. What is the result of that quota for Denmark? It is very difficult to go by figures, but I see it estimated that the Government are actually giving a present to the Danish farmers of something like £8,000,000. I do not think it is our business to give £8,000,000 a year to Danish farmers. I would much rather have seen a good strong tariff put on, which would give £8,000,000 to this country, instead of conferring a. benefit on the Danish farmers.
As to the Argentine Agreement, I should like first to read what the

931
Minister of Agriculture said in the House of Commons. He did not read out the whole of the Agreement, and I should like to show afterwards that he left out some important points. What Major Elliot read was this:
"The Government of the United Kingdom … will not impose any restriction on the imports of chilled beef into the United Kingdom from Argentina … unless and then only in so far as it appears to the Government of the United Kingdom, after consulting and exchanging all relevant information with the Argentine Government, to be necessary in order to secure a remunerative level of prices in the United Kingdom market. …"
But the Agreement itself is much more favourable to Argentina than what was read out by the Minister in the House of Commons.
This is Article 1 of the Agreement:
"The Government of the United Kingdom, fully recognising the importance of the chilled beef industry to the economic life of Argentina "—
I wish the Government would recognise the detriment caused to the economic life of British agriculture by the Agreement. They seem very anxious to do something to please Argentina. There I think I see the hand of the President of the Board of Trade. Article 1 of the Agreement goes on:
"will not impose any restriction on the imports of chilled beef into the United Kingdom from Argentina"—
then these words which follow were left out by the Minister—
"in any quarter of a year below the quantity imported in the corresponding quarter of the year ended the 30th June, 1932 "—
so that when the figure goes below that enormous importation into this country we are not to make any cut at all in the importation of Argentine chilled beef. Before those large imports in the year ended June 30, 1932, we were equally suffering from the competition of Argentine chilled beef, so I am not surprised that those words were carefully left out by Major Elliot. The Article goes on:
"unless and then only in so far as it appears to the Government of the United Kingdom, after consulting and exchanging relevant information with the Argentine Government, to be necessary in order to secure a remunerative level of prices in the United Kingdom market"…
932
But there is a great deal more left out by Major Elliot. I should like to know why he left out these words:
"and no such restriction will be maintained if it appears that the imports so excluded are being replaced by increased imports into the United Kingdom of other kinds of meat (other than experimental shipments of chilled beef from other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations) with the result of neutralising the desired effect on prices."
The meaning of that to me is this. Supposing our Dominions increase their very large export of chilled beef to us—and, as we all know, experiments are being made by Australia and other countries, including, I believe, South Africa, and we should get a large extra amount coming in—apparently under that Agreement, which ought to have been quoted fully in the House of Commons, the effect will be that we can no longer make any cut in the imports of chilled beef into this country. Does this not give Argentina the benefit of Dominion status? It seems to me that this Agreement by a side wind gives the same advantage to Argentina in certain conditions as one of our Dominions would enjoy. I -should like to ask what advantage the English farmer derives from the quota when it has resulted in the price of English seasoned cattle being driven down to a figure which is the lowest known for five years. Cattle which have cost the British farmer 50s. per cwt. to buy and fatten during the winter are now being sold at 40s. a cwt. whilst in some markets the figure is as low as 31s. per cwt. Five years ago the same animals would have fetched 55s. per cwt. Apparently the quota, so far as it is in force at the present moment, is of no advantage to the British farmer with regard to his live stock.
I have taken certain figures from the Argentine Customs, which show that in February, 1932, when there were no restrictions, 374,475 cwts. of chilled beef were imported and that when the restrictions were in force, in February, 1933, 387,675 cwts. were imported, an increase of 13,200 cwts., so I cannot see what advantage the quotas have been to the British farmer up to the present seeing that there has been an increase instead of a decrease of imports. I said that I cannot understand why the Minister for Agriculture pins his faith to quotas. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to

933
convince the House that quotas are much better than tariffs, but why tie your hands for three years and say that there are to be no tariffs during that time? Tariffs are good in. a way because they not only raise the prices but they also raise revenue. Would it not be a great advantage to this country if we could increase the revenue now? If the revenue were increased by tariffs there would probably be a reduction of the Income Tax or reduction in other ways and that would assist us in finding money for the unemployed.
I think very strong arguments were put forward the other day by Mr. Amery, who is a great authority on this question. He said:
"As regards agriculture, the main point that I should like to make is to ask why we should have precluded ourselves, quite unnecessarily, from making use of the weapon of a duty to protect our agriculture, in regard to some of the most important articles which affect the life of our agriculture. We have not yet heard a single intelligible reason why the Government are not prepared to impose a duty upon bacon or other agricultural products."
I think some explanation is required from the Government as to why they have bunt their boats as regard to tariffs, which are very flexible and can be used with great advantage even when quotas are in force. I cannot understand why the Government are so afraid of tariffs. It has always seemed to me, although I have been a Free Trader all my life, that from the very moment that all Parties agreed that there should be a Wages Board for agricultural labourers it was impossible not to have agricultural tariffs.
What is the effect of that Wages Board? What the Act did was this. It said that the wages of agricultural labourers should net be subject to the question of supply and demand. The result is that agricultural wages have been doubled since the War. I am very glad they have been doubled, but on the other hand it is very well known to many members of your Lordships' House that, especially in East Anglia, it is perfectly impossible for the farmers to pay these very high wages, and great unemployment has, in consequence, occurred. I will put it to the Government, as I have put it to myself, how can you protect the wages of agricultural labourers and refuse to protect the goods which they produce? It seems to me perfectl illogical to say
934
it is right to protect the labourer but quite wrong to protect the goods. We all know the effect in East Anglia and in the West of England. I see that the noble Earl and the Leader of the House are amused. The Leader of the House does not care a bit, but if he were one of those unfortunate landowners who are dependent for their bread and butter on what they get from the land he would know it is no laughing matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): As the noble Lord has twice mentioned me by name I may say that I was not in the least amused at the statement, but amused to find it came from a life-long Free Trader.
LORD STRACRIE: The noble Viscount has no reason to be amused, because I state definitely that, although I was a Free Trader, it is illogical to say you are to protect the wages of those who produce the goods while the goods themselves are not to be protected. I cannot see anything laughable in that. I am not a fanatic about quotas or about other questions, but when I see a thing ought to be done I am quite ready to say a change should be made; and I contend that it is illogical to say that the wages of the labourers should be protected if at the same time you do not equally protect the goods which they produce, as otherwise those goods cannot be produced at prices which can compete with foreign imports. That is why I cannot understand the interruption of the noble Viscount. I imagine he interrupted because he knows he has no case. I hope he will show us how it can be right for the wages of the labourers to be protected and for the goods which they produce not to be protected. No doubt the noble and learned Viscount will be able to produce a legal argument in that regard which a lay member of the House could not do.
It seems to me that really why Major Elliot is so anxious to have quotas is because he has got undoubtedly the support of the National Farmers' Union as far as headquarters in Bedford Square are concerned. Undoubtedly these headquarters have approved of quotas and approved of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture. When this question was raised in another place, and when some member ventured to quote what had been

935
said by the Lancashire County Agricultural Society, Major Elliot said it was the only body opposing the Pacts. I do not blame Major Elliot, as a Scottish representative, for knowing nothing about the Lancashire County Agricultural Society, but I do happen to know that it is a very important body indeed, and leads a very large body of agricultural opinion. It is a body which is as well qualified to express its opinion in this matter as the three or four gentlemen sitting at the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union in Bedford Square. The National Farmers' Union so far have only supported the policy by their president and one or two other officers. Their Council have not met, and have not yet expressed any opinion as to whether the quota is desirable or whether they would not have tariffs instead. This, which has only taken place lately, may perhaps appeal to the Minister of Agriculture as a Scottish representative for Glasgow. I see the other day that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland at Glasgow supported the contention of the Lockerbie branch that quotas on imported meat had not served the purpose for which they were imposed. That is a very strong declaration indeed, and I expect we shall hear a great deal more about it in other parts of the country.
I notice also that the Minister of Agriculture said the Government were calling people into consultation immediately after the debate on Wednesday—next day —regarding the country's supply of manufactured milk. It has been reported that the Minister has met the foreign importers of manufactured milk, but nothing has been decided. They are going to have further consultations. It is also stated that he is going to ask the Dominions to come into consultation with him, but I wonder what is the use of asking the Dominions to come into consultation and cut their supplies. It is rather curious what the Minister said in reply to an interruption by Mr. Rothschild. Asked the question: "What about the Dominions?" the Minister replied: "The Dominions have free access to our markets. What they do is no affair of ours." I should have thought it was very much our affair. But he is going to consult the Dominions to see whether they would be willing to restrict their supplies of manufactured milk. I do not know that that will be an advantage. He
936
actually approached the Dominions, New Zealand and Australia, and they would not agree to cut their imports by 10 per cent. so far as cheese and butter were concerned. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture is always taking the line: "I can do nothing to-day, but I shall do it to-morrow."
The Ottawa Agreements have tied the hands of the Government very much. It seems to me we are going to have our hands tied in exactly the same way by these Danish and Argentine Agreements. It seems to me that these Agreements are like the Ottawa Agreements, and to them can well be applied the statement by Sir Arthur Hazelrigg, an ex-President of the Royal Agricultural Society and Chairman of the Council of Agriculture for England, who represented agriculture at Ottawa. He said that agriculture at Ottawa, had been sacrificed to the supposed needs of industry, shipping and vested interests; and that is exactly what is being done in these new Agreements. I beg to move for Papers.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think we are all very pleased that the noble Lord has raised this most important subject in our House in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing it. We are all very interested, as the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has already said, to see the source from which the last speech has come. I think there is a real hope of the policy of this Government receiving complete national assent if the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, in truth represents, as we have no doubt he does, those noble Lords who sit with him on the Benches opposite. In addition to the specific Questions to which he has addressed himself, he has raised the general topic of what I may call tariff versus quota. I am very glad that he has done so because it is very difficult to answer the particular Questions that he has put, or discuss the particular matter which he has laid before us, without first applying oneself to the general lines of policy on which the Government are attempting to proceed.
He has asked why we have totally rejected the whole idea of advancing on this problem by means of a tariff. We have done nothing of the kind. No single

937
duty on agricultural produce—and there are a great number in existence to-day—has been lowered as the result of the Agreements we are discussing. There are high duties to-day on horticultural produce, duties on potatoes, duties even on commodities that come into the Danish Agreement itself, such as eggs and poultry. Not one of those duties has been in any way affected by the discussions or the Agreements arrived at as a result of those discussions. But we very early 3acne to the conclusion that, while a tariff might well have its uses in certain cases, if we were to tackle the problem of raising the wholesale prices of agricultural produce in this country—and raising them as quickly as could be done, because that was necessary—we should have to have a very much more effective and drastic weapon in our hands than the tariff. To my mind a tariff may well be a brake, and frequently a useful brake, on the wheels of Free Trade, but in itself it is not a challenge to the system itself, arid, having imposed your tariff you still have left that chaotic state of the market which may, as the Minister said in another place, be very dear to the hearts of the members of the Liberal Party, but, I venture to say, has very little support from either that side of the House or this side of the House.
We had to choose the most effective instrument for dealing with the problem. The noble Lord has asked: Why choose? Well, as the President of the Board of Trade said, when you are making an Agreement you have to be prepared to give something. We were I prepared to give up the least effective instrument for dealing with the problem with which we were faced, and were, therefore, prepared, in relation to the particular commodities that are mentioned in the Agreement, not to impose or increase tariffs on those commodities. Why is it that we say the quota is the more effective means of dealing with the problem? The reason is this. What is wrong with the markets with which we haw to deal today is that they are glutted with more produce than can be consumed, and our problem, therefore, is to decrease supplies and regularise supplies to the market. How can you do that by means of a tariff when, with a stroke of the pen, a foreign Government can undertake to subsidise exports in an exporting country, as, indeed, is being done in
938
some form or other in almost every exporting country to-day How is a tariff going to deal with a sudden fall in the exchange of an exporting country? You can impose a 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. tariff at night and you can wake up next morning to find it has been swept aside by an alteration in exchange values.
Then for the great mass of these commodities with which we are dealing we are virtually the only market to which they can be sent. Thus 85 per cent. of the meat exports from Argentina come to this country, and well over 99 per cent. of their chilled beef comes to this country. However high a tariff you place on Argentine imports, where is that meat going if it is not coming to this country? It has got to come here. You may say that by imposing a tariff you can ruin the Argentine producers, and then they will not breed the cattle to send, but your Lordships will realise that that means a very long process. For another two years the castle are coming on, and if we were to wait for two years I do not think the noble Lord who has just spoken, or any other person in this country, would be satisfied that we were seriously attempting to deal with the situation that has been confronting us. Lastly, what does the farmer in this country or any other country want? The farmer in this country is not a greedy man. It is not high prices he is after; he wants stable prices. He wants to know what he is going to get, and the only possible manner in which you can stabilise prices is by stabilising quantity. A tariff does not stabilise quantity.
Let me turn to figures in order to attempt to demonstrate the general points which I would venture to lay before your Lordships. For this purpose I would like to compare the situation as regards meat from South America, which has been regulated on a quantitative or quota basis, and meat which is being sent to us from Southern Ireland, which is being regulated by means of a tariff. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has already quoted to your Lordships certain figures from that great agricultural organ the Daily Express, with regard to imports of meat into this country from the Argentine, and he referred to the official figures for the River Plate. We turn to the quotation to which he was referring, and we see that, according to

939
these official figures, the imports of chilled beef to this country were 13,000 quarters higher than the figure for February of last year, that the imports in February this year have increased by 13,000 quarters. I have searched through various sources of figures in order to try to find out where this particular figure was discovered. I find that the figures for the River Plate show that in last February just under 448,000 quarters of chilled beef were shipped to this country, and that this February the figure was 429,000 odd, a decrease of about 19,000 quarters.
As to frozen beef, the figures to which the noble Lord has referred state that there was an increase of 11,000 quarters. The actual figures for the River Plate were, in January last year, 11,250 quarters, and in January this year, 9,500 quarters. For February last year the figures were 5,300 quarters and for February this year 9,000 quarters, an increase of 4,000 quarters, or, taking the two months together, a decrease of 2,000 quarters. Where does the Daily Express, I wonder, get the figure of an increase of 11,000 quarters? I was a little bit surprised to notice that in spite of the reference to the Daily Express in the Motion of the noble Lord, then is no one here from the Daily Express to defend these misrepresentations. I should have thought this would have been a very good opportunity to come here and either justify the figures or else make a public apology for putting before the farming community at this terrible time so gross a misrepresentation of the actual situation.
I have also figures prepared by His Majesty's Government. Your Lordships need not be alarmed that I am going to read them all to you. I have summarised them for the three months from January to March. Taking the figures for the whole of the meat supplies from South America generally, I find that, for the first quarter of 1932, the imports into this country were 3,079,000 cwts., and for the first quarter of 1933, 2,833,000 cwts., a reduction of well over 200,000 cwts. or 8 per cent. of the total imports into this country taking the one year as compared with the other. If that is the "great meat muddle" of which the Government are accused, I am very proud to be a member of that Government.
940
There is one point I should mention, and that is that we had hoped that the last figure I have given would have been nearer 10 per cent., but in the first arrangement that we made with the South American importers there were certain classes of meat which did not come into the arrangement. There was an increase of imports in those particular classes. In frozen boned beef there was an increase. I have included those increases in the total figure which gives a decrease of 8 per cent. in the whole supplies.
Let me turn now to Ireland. There you will find that in spite of there being, first, a 20 per cent. tariff, which was raised to 40 per cent., the figures since January have steadily increased. In January the imports were 36,000 head, in March 63,000 head and in the last week of April, the week ending April 29, the figures were 1,867 head last year and 3,553 head in the corresponding week of this year. There was an increase, therefore, of nearly 100 per cent., and that with a 40 per cent. tariff. Your Lordships will see that our preference for what we call quantitative regulation is not based on mere theory.
There is one final result of our policy to which I would venture to refer. That is the question of the prices that are being realised to-day by the British farmer. I notice that in the Daily Express of April 24 it was said:
"Not only is the Argentine importer capturing the market"—
we have already examined that statement—
"he is also getting between¾d. and½a lb. more for his beef than before the quota was established."
The quota was established on November 7. He was then getting 3s. ld. a stone of 8 lbs. for his beef. On April 21 he was getting 2s. 11¾d., that is 1¼d. less. On May 15, a few days ago, he was getting 3s. 0¼d., that is ¾d. less than or November 7 when the embargo was imposed. I want to be quite frank with your Lordships and I think that those figures giving the prices on those particular days are slightly favourable to our case. Probably it would be fair to say that, taking April as a whole, the Argentine importer was getting something like½d more in April than last

941
November. But your Lordships will realise that there is a very substantial difference between½d. and the figure given in the Daily Express of "between¾d. and 1½d." It has been implied that the Argentine importer was getting much more for his meat than the British farmer. The fact is that as against those two figures of 3s. ld. and 3s. 0¼d. for the Argentine, the price of English long-sides was 4s. on November 7 and 4s. 6d. on May 15. 1933. That has been reflected in actual live-stock prices to the extent of about 6d. to 4s. a cwt. Admittedly the increase is not as much as we should have liked to see, but nevertheless it means On an average beast between 35s. and £2. In the case of mutton we have a figure of 4s. ld. a stone in November and Gs. 3d.a stone on May 15, 1933. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that while the British farmer has had a very large increase in prices for his meat, the Argentine has had a comparatively negligible increase.
I have tried to demonstrate that not only is the quota the most effective means but the only means of dealing with the immediate situation, and I hope also to be able to persuade your Lordships that the quota is by far the best method of laying permanent foundations for agriculture in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, seems very keen about the tariff to-day, but he has changed his mind once on this matter and I am not sure he has yet persuaded his friends and colleagues, Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Herbert Samuel, to go quite as far as he would go. It would be quite easy if the Government of this country changes for a Liberal Free Trade Government to bring in a Budget which would sweep aside tariffs and leave the farmer with no. Protection whatsoever, but it is not going to be very easy to sweep aside a great scheme such as has been devised for us by the Lane-Fox Commission for the reorganisation of the pig and bacon industry in which the whole structure of the industry is re-organised. It will take a very strong Government indeed to decide to smash up such a great scheme. By putting the industry into a position in which it will be able to deliver the goods to the public, and in which it will also be able to regulate its own glut in a short time, we are producing a scheme that is sound and one that it will be difficult to destroy.
942
In the scheme we are putting forward there are safeguards to the consumer and other sections of the industry—safeguards, incidentally, which were considered sufficient at the time of the passing of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, by a Labour Government.
Lastly, the noble Lord seems to be distressed by the fact that the people of Denmark and of the Argentine feel that they, too, have gained something from these Agreements. Such a fact most certainly does not distress His Majesty's Government. The reason we feel we have been able to give them something without hurting the British farmer is that by this system of quota regulation, though we limit the quantity for import, we give them a defined quantity to which they know they can work and an opportunity of escaping from the price level of glut which they have been receiving. The noble Lord mentioned that possibly Denmark and the Argentine were going to get as much for the decreased quantity as they were when sending larger quantities. But we cannot attack Protection from both sides. If the Liberals want to attack Protection from the point of view that it destroys foreign purchasing powers, they should not turn round when we devise a method by which foreign countries can go on buying things in this country. That is another reason why this policy can be more permanent than a policy of tariffs. It is because our policy is designed upon these lines that we are able to carry on with it in spite of the World Economic Conference and the tariff truce.
The Minister quoted the following in another place the other day from the recommendations of the experts for the Agenda of the World Economic Conference on the question of high price levels:
"The Commission thinks that the question requires to be considered whether, in the case of certain primary commodities where large stocks are overhanging the, markets, a better level of prices could not be obtained by the regulation of exports or production. Such an arrangement would be of special importance in the case of wheat."
That shows we have managed by our policy to take the protection of agriculture out of the sphere of international controversy. I have dealt at length with this question of tie factors which enable this policy of ours to be permanent because the problem of the farmer is a long-

943
term problem. It is no good offering an emergency policy. He must be able to look ahead with some confidence as well as feel he is being saved from destruction at the moment. I contend that this policy stands whether it is argued in theory or examined in terms of facts and figures, or whether it is argued in terms of short-or long-term policy.
As I have gone on longer than I intended I will deal quickly with the terms of the Question, and the points to which the noble Lord particularly applied himself. We come first to the Danish Agreement. The noble Lord is concerned about our undertaking in Article 4. We have said that we will not
"regulate the quantity of the imports of bacon and hams., butter, eggs or cream from Denmark, except in so far as may be necessary to secure the effective operation of a scheme or schemes for the regulation of the marketing of domestic supplies of these products."
That has been right through the policy of the Government and why should we not state it in the Trade Agreement? Then on the question of the specific figures which have been referred to. It has been suggested in an article on the "Three Black Pacts" that actually we are going to have a greater importation of food into this country from Denmark than if these articles had not been agreed to and signed. Let me read the particular words. Take bacon and hams. What is said in the Agreement? On page 4 you will find that:
"For bacon and hams the Danish allocation shall not be less than 62 per cent. of the total permitted imports from foreign countries."
How is the British farmer sold there? All we say to the Dane is: "Whatever we do in regard to restricting the supplies of bacon into this country, we shall see that you get 62 per cent. of whatever is to be imported." How does that sell the British farmer?
Then we come to the question of eggs, and here I find in the Daily Express—I apologise for continually mentioning this newspaper, but unfortunately it is a paper very much read by a number of members of the farming community, and therefore it is necessary to use every opportunity of correcting the false impressions created by it—this statement:
"Denmark is to be allowed to send us 38 per cent, of the egg imports, which on
944
last year's basis will mean 6,840,000 great hundreds a year. But last year she sent us 6,392,000 great hundreds. Thus, the Agreement will mean the dumping of an extra. 450,000 great hundreds of Danish eggs."
What does the Agreement really say? It says that the Dane will have the right to send 38 per cent. of whatever quantity of eggs is imported into this country. There is nothing about the figures for last year. We do not say 38 per cent. of last year's imports, but 38 per cent. of whatever is imported in the future. None of us anticipate such a world disaster in trade as will necessitate our having to cut off all imports of eggs into this country, but if it did happen then 38 per cent. of nothing is exactly nothing, and how can that hurt the British farmer? We say in the Agreement that the Danish allocation shall not be less than 5½million great hundreds in any year,
"subject, however, to the understanding that if some greater reduction in the total imports from all foreign countries than is compatible with this quantity should be essential to secure the maintenance of a remunerative level of prices,"
then we shall have the right to impose yet further reductions, according to the will of the British Government, but that in any event the Danes shall have 38 per cent. of whatever is imported.
Then, lastly, the question of butter. Last year the Danes exported 2,584,000 cwts. to this country. We are limiting them to 2,300,000 cwts., a reduction of 13 or 14 per cent. Is that selling the British farmer? It is true, with regard to butter, that we have given a figure below which we cannot reduce, but again I defend that simply on the ground that you have got to give something in an Agreement, and it is considered that butter is a commodity in which British farmers are less interested than in a great number of other commodities. At any rate we have got that possible reduction of between 13 and 14 per cent.
Now let us turn to the Argentine Agreement. The noble Lord finds fault with Article 1 of that Agreement, and complains that the Minister did not quote it completely. He quoted all the relevant passages. The noble Lord complains that he did not quote the last sentence:

945
"and no such restriction will be maintained if it appears that the imports so excluded are being replaced by increased imports into the United Kingdom of other kinds of meat (other than experimental shipments of chilled beef from other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations) with the result of neutralisin4 the desired effect on prices."
The only possible reason that we can have for keeping out imports is that of improving prices for the home producer, and what use is it to us to limit imports from the Argentine, and destroy our trade there, and then have some other section of the world sending in more meat and making it impossible for the home producer to benefit from the increase of prices? Of course, that is a policy which 3.s absolutely and entirely out of the question.
What we have done, maintaining the spirit of the Ottawa Agreements—and that spirit was Great Britain first, the Empire second, and the foreigner third—is that we have taken the right to continue the 10 per cent. reduction on Argentine importations below what we call the Ottawa year, which is from July, 1931, to June, 1932. Then we say that if we want to make any further reduction we shall only do it by having an equivalent reduction from the Dominions, which means that having reduced the Argentine importations by 10 per cent., if there is any further reduction the Dominions will have to accept A also. When I say "have to accept" I mean if we carry out the scheme. How then, on the question of meat, has the British farmer been sold? We have got the right to reduce below the Ottawa year by 10 per cent., and to go further than that providing we are in a position to persuade the Dominions to join with us in the further reduction.
The noble Lord says that that is out of the question, and that of course the Dominions will not, but the Dominions did meet us before when we had the negotiations in November, prior to the original meat restrictions. Those restrictions were of a purely voluntary character, and the Dominions met us most generously, but also on the basis of their own self interest, which, indeed, they must consider. They saw a market in meat crashing, just as we to-day are seeing a market in butter crashing, and they realised that it would pay them to
946
stabilise their imports of meat into this country in order to stop the bottom going out of the market. That is exactly the situation that we are contemplating in this Agreement.
I must apologise to your Lordships for detaining you at such length, but at the present moment very serious things are occurring in the farming industry. We are attempting, in conjunction with the leaders of that industry, to whose assistance and co-operation I should like to take this opportunity of testifying, to put through great schemes of organisation of the home market in this country, coupled with organisation of imports, and there are a large number, I am afraid. of interested parties, and also of those who have so far as one can see little but political and personal reasons for opposing, who are endeavouring to do everything in their power to persuade the farmer on whose consent the operation of schemes must ultimately depend, to prepare himself to vote against their being put into force. I venture to say that misrepresentations such as I have mentioned to your Lordships to-day will make it very much harder for us to persuade the farmer that it is going to be to his interest to put through these schemes. These misrepresentations are put out with the object of prejudicing the farmer against a policy that we are endeavouring to develop. It is a very grave responsibility that these men are taking upon themselves.
I want to appeal to your Lordships—to all of you, who have great influence in your own particular spheres—to realise that every scrap of wise leadership which can be given to the farmer to-day is needed. The farmer is an isolated man, living out in the country, possibly miles from the nearest village. He is struggling against a wave of world depression. Can we blame him if he clutches at any straw that is held out to him? His only hope is a rigid control of the quantities that are coming on to glutted markets, and neither tariffs nor chaotic marketing methods are going to supply him with a solution to that problem. I venture to appeal, therefore, to all those who have the welfare of the farmer at heart to rally behind the Minister, to rally behind the Government, to rally behind the National Farmers' Union in their struggle to pro-

947
vide agriculture with that permanent programme and policy which alone can give it a permanent place in the national economy which it is essential for the whole nation that it should possess.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, said that if you protect the wages of the labourer it is illogical not also to protect the goods which he produces. That is a very old story and it is an old Protectionist argument, but I do certainly agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House that it is u surprising argument to hear from a lifelong Free Trader. But, after all, every man has a right to change his opinions. But is it illogical not to protect goods because you protect labour? I do not think that, follows at all. It surely depends a good deal from whose point of view you look at the question. The farmer might naturally argue that if you compel him to pay higher wages you ought to raise the prices of the commodities which he produces. That would be logical from his point of view, though I should not myself be convinced by his logic, I am afraid, because I am still a Free Trader. I have the greatest sympathy with the farmers at the present time, but I think there are other and better ways of helping them than by resorting to tariffs and quotas and other devices of that kind.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I ask the noble Lord a question? How does he reconcile the import board policy of his Party with Free Trade?
LORD SANDERSON: The import board policy of our Party has not been definitely formulated yet, I think.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord will excuse me. I officially on behalf of the Party, when I was a member of it, always supported that policy.
LORD SANDERSON: I shall not bother about these inconsistencies. I am still a Free Trader. I was saying that the noble Lord's point of view might be logical if looked at from the point of view of the farmer. But if you look at it from the point of view of the labourer it is surely very different. What does the protection of the labourer's wages mean? It means giving him a better standard of living.
948
The object of protecting agricultural produce is to raise the prices of these things. It is bound to have that effect, and that is also the object of it. Is it logical to increase a man's money wages with one hand and to reduce his real wages with the other? Is it logical to give him more money with one hand and make him pay more for his food with the other? I think the labourer would regard that proceeding as the reverse of logical. I was very much interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, say that he was in favour of tariffs with the object of obtaining a reduction of the Income Tax. I suppose he was speaking on behalf of his Party, the Liberal Party, and it is extremely interesting to know at last where the Liberal Party stands on this question of Free Trade and Protection.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I be allowed to demur to the last statement of the noble Lord?
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House for having calmed our fears, unduly raised by the daily Press, and I think it has been of advantage to us to have the (government's theory and defence of what they call quantitative restriction put so clearly before us. I only rise to say that, whilst, as it seems to me, the case for these restrictions with regard to the outsider is so formidable as to be hardly contestable, the further use of that theory at home to which the noble Earl made some slight reference does present a vast danger to which I should like to call his attention before it is too late. Quantitative restriction at home, after all, must mean restriction of employment. The great overwhelming fact that we have to face is that agriculture must provide greatly increased employment in this country, otherwise there is but little hope for the unemployed. I would urge upon the noble Earl and upon his colleagues in the Cabinet, therefore, that they should think once, twice, and three times before they commit themselves to any policy of quantitative restriction of production in the home country.
Whilst I welcome on the whole the type of Agreement which has been lately entered into—and I trust that we shall shortly come to an Agreement with our

949
old friends in Norway and Sweden just as satisfactory, or perhaps even more satisfactory—still I would urge upon the Government that in all these Agreements room must be left for the unlimited expansion of the home agricultural industry. When I use the words "unlimited expansion" I am not, of course, referring to expansion that can be realised within the next six months or the next year or the-next two or three years, but, as the noble Earl so wisely said, it is a longterm policy you want in agriculture, and that long-term policy should, I venture to submit, leave room for unlimited expansion of production.
LORD ST RACHIE: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Earl has no Papers which he can lay, but before withdrawing my Motion I should just like to refer very briefly to what the noble Earl said. He said this country was glutted. He asked how tariffs can help since there would be bounties. No doubt there would be bounties, but the only way to challenge bounties is to put on a heavier tariff. I do not see that there is any argument in that. Then he made the remarkable statement that farmers only want stabilised prices. They certainly do not want the stabilised prices of the present moment. They want stabilised prices which will enable them to get a fair remuneration for their labour; but stabilised prices of the present time they do not want.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord will allow me, it is most undesirable that the impression should go out to the farmers that any one connected with the Ministry is anxious to stabilise prices as they are to-day. I was only defending the farmer. I said I did not think that he is a greedy man, and that he is more interested in stable prices than in a very high price.
LORD STR ACHIE: What the farmers are continually saying everywhere is that they want to increase the present prices, and that the whole depression depends on the question of prices. Then as regards the noble Earl's figures. I took figures, for instance, as regards the present prices of live stock, from the Farmer and Stock Breeder. The noble Earl took his figures from somewhere else. You can argue in any way from figures, and it must be left to outside
950
people to judge whether the noble Earl's figures are right or whether mine are right. It can only be left in that way. The noble Earl depreciated the value of tariffs, but I would point out that they are still maintained in the Danish Agreement. I refer to the tariff of 15s. a cwt. on butter. If tariffs are no use, why did not they simply say: "We will have a quota for Danish butter," and take off the duty? No doubt the Danes would have been very pleased. Also, the noble Earl asked the question: What would the Liberal Party do? I should be very much more interested to hear what the Labour Party would do, to which Party the noble Earl belongs and of which he is a brilliant member. He knows very well that at the next Election we shall get a Labour Government or—which I hope—we shall get a Conservative Government. That would be a great misfortune for the noble Earl who will not sit on that Front Bench any longer.
The noble Earl also rather intimated that we might have quotas in this country. I am not surprised at that, because under the Agricultural Marketing Act passed by the Labour Government there are clauses to restrict production and regulate supplies in this country. I quite understand the noble Earl, as a member of the Labour Party, wishing to control distribution and production. I was rather surprised that my noble friend behind me, when speaking about agricultural wages, did not say: "It will be all right when the Labour Party come in, because when we are in power we shall confiscate all the land of the country and we shall be able to rent it at low prices." That is part of the policy of the Labour Party—the confiscation of land. The noble Earl also said that the Dominions must accept a reduction. I do not think the Dominions would approve of what the noble Earl said.
EARL DE LA WARR: I must correct the noble Lord, who is making a most mischievous statement. I never said that on behalf of the Government, and I am content to leave it to the OFFICIAL REPORT to bear me out. I cannot accept the noble Lord's version.
LORD STRACHIE: I accept the noble Earl's explanation that he did not mean that. Then there is another point. He talked about a long-term policy. We

951
heard about a long-term policy from Sir John Gilmour when he was Minister of Agriculture. He was always telling farmers about a long-term policy. That is exactly what farmers do not want. They want immediate relief from the present depression. I was very much amused by the noble Marquess who got up and said that I did not speak for the Liberal Party. I never said I did. But the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, tried to intimate that he spoke for the Liberal Party, which amused me very much. He is a newcomer in this House, and he has not worked in politics all his life, as I have, fighting for the Liberal cause. As a matter of fact there is no Leader of the
952
Liberal Party in this House at the present time. After Lord Beauchamp's departure the Liberal Peers were not called together. There is no Leader actually though Lord Reading is accepted by tacit agreement. Therefore Lord Lothian had not the slightest right to speak as if he were the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. I am surprised he has run away and prevented me from replying to him. I beg leave to ask to withdraw my Motion, as the noble Lord said there are no Papers he can lay.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.