HL Deb 26 March 1935 vol 96 cc321-31
LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I beg to introduce the Pork (Import Regulation) Order, 1935. Before this Order came into operation there was no statutory regulation of the imports of pork, although for some time, as your Lordships are aware, imports of foreign bacon have been regulated under the provisions of the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, and imports of foreign beef, mutton and lamb, under the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements Act of 1932. It was recognised last year that it was necessary, in connection with the measures which were being taken to regulate the supplies of meat coming on to the British market, to arrange for some regulation of imports of pork, particularly in view of the largely increased rate of importation in that year. In 1934 about 580,000 cwt. of foreign frozen pork were imported into this country—more than double the amount imported in the preceding year and four times the quantity imported in 1932. The Bacon Marketing Scheme contains provisions designed to control the amount of imported pork which is put into cure and sold as bacon in Great Britain by registered curers, but it has been found difficult satisfactorily to implement these provisions in view of the abnormally large quantity of frozen pork which has been imported into this country. It is hoped that one consequence of the new Order will be to make it easier for the Bacon Marketing Board to implement these provisions of their scheme.

In August of last year it was decided to ask the importers to observe a voluntary arrangement for the limitation of imports of foreign pork in the last six months of that year. It was found, however, owing to commitments already entered into by the importers, that it was not practicable to keep imports within the desired limits. Consideration was given to the question whether it would be feasible to control imports by a voluntary arrangement this year, but the conclusion was reached that it would not be possible to arrange for the desired measure of control without a licensing system. This Order has, therefore, been made under Section 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which enables the Board of Trade to make such Orders, after consultation with the other Ministers concerned, provided they are satisfied that the conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled. The Board of Trade have satisfied themselves on these points and, with the concurrence of the other Departments concerned, have made the Order, which is subject to the approval of Parliament.

This Order came into operation on the twelfth day of this month. The terms of the Order are similar to those of other Orders which have been made under the same Statute and have received the approval of Parliament. If your Lordships will turn to the Order you will see that paragraph 1 provides that it shall not be lawful to import into the United Kingdom, except under licence, any pork produced in any foreign country. Paragraph 2 provides that a licence may take the form either of a licence issued by the Board of Trade or of a certificate in an approved form given by an association to which the Board of Trade has issued a licence. The principal foreign countries from which pork is imported into the United Kingdom are the United States of America and Argentina. Pork is imported from the United States of America by a number of firms, and the trade is substantially represented on the Liverpool Provision Trade Association. It has been found convenient to grant to the secretaries of that Association a licence under the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Order. By virtue of that licence the secretaries of the Association will issue certificates authorising individual imports. A similar procedure has been adopted under the Potato (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, and, in respect of imports of bacon from the United States, under the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934. Imports of pork from Argentina are handled by three firms which have received licences from the Board of Trade. Small quantities are imported from time to time from other foreign countries, such as Brazil and Uruguay, and such imports will be dealt with by the issue of ad hoc licences by the Board of Trade.

Paragraph 3 follows the lines of provisions inserted in previous Orders, and provides that pork prohibited to be imported may be dealt with under procedure laid down in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. Paragraph 4 again follows precedent and provides for the revocation of licences or certificates and for the imposition of such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may think proper. Paragraphs 5 and 6 also contain provisions similar to those which have been inserted in previous Orders. Paragraph 5 empowers the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to require proof of origin. Paragraph 6 provides that the Order shall not apply to pork imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment, subject to conditions imposed by the Commissioners of Customs. Paragraph 7 defines "pork" for the purposes of the Order. According to that definition the Order will apply to uncured pig carcases or parts of carcases with the exception of the head, feet, rind, and offals, and of canned products. This Order does not affect the prohibition of the importation of meat, including pork, from the Continent of Europe under the Importation of Carcases (Prohibition) Orders made under the Diseases of Animals Acts.

The Order applies only to pork produced in foreign countries. Voluntary arrangements have been made with the Dominions for the regulation of their shipments of pork sent to the United Kingdom. The arrangement made for the first six months of this year is that imports of pork from foreign countries should be limited in each quarter to the average quantity imported in the corresponding quarters of the three preceding years. The effect of this arrangement will be to reduce existing imports by about 48 per cent. as compared with the abnormally large imports in the first six months of 1934, although the amounts to be imported will still be substantially larger than the quantities imported in the corresponding periods of 1932 and 1933. I think I have explained all the salient points in the Order, and I beg to move that it be approved.

Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templernore.)

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, we on this side of the House take a rather serious view of this Import Regulation Order. The information given to your Lordships' House is singularly scanty. There has been no indication of any considered discussion of the effect of the Order. There has been no issue of a White Paper such as the excellent White Paper issued in regard to meat importations, and we really are unable to gather from the information available what exactly will be the result. That point was raised in another place by Sir Percy Harris, who complained that the information given was utterly and hopelessly inadequate, and I must say, after reading through the information which is available, that I think there was substance in his complaint.

First of all, I should like to deal with the question of the quantitative regulation of imports. I think it is a little misleading to tell your Lordships only of the rise in the importation of pork during the years 1932, 1933 and 1934. From the Trade and Navigation Returns of the United Kingdom we find that in the months of January and February this year, compared with those months in previous years, the imports of pork from foreign countries actually went down very substantially. From the United States the imports in those two months were only half what they were a year ago. Not only are they not going up, but they are going down very substantially. From the other country mentioned by the noble Lord, the Argentine, imports were down by 30 per cent. in those two months. Why, then, is it necessary to introduce import regulations? I suggest that we really ought to have a clear picture of what is going to be the effect of this Order instead of being given merely the import figures for 1932, 1933 and 1934.

We are told that the effect of the Bacon Order has been to restrict the importation of bacon and that it is intended that the importation of pork shall be restricted in the same way. But when we examine these two products together, we find that the increased import of pork does not nearly make up for the loss in bacon imports from Denmark and other countries. For instance, I see that in 1932—I am taking the years to which the noble Lord referred—the sum of the two products, pork plus bacon, was 12,000,000 cwt. In the year following it had gone down to 9,900,000 cwt. and last year it had gone down again to 8,800,000 cwt. It is absurd, therefore, to pretend that because imports of pork have gone up the increase is going to make up for the loss in bacon imports. It does not make up for the loss. It does not account for more than 15 or 20 per cent, of the loss in bacon imports. The increase in pork is negligible compared with the decrease in bacon.

So much for the quantities; but now, my Lords, look at the effect on prices. The effect of the bacon restriction—this is very important to realise; and the Government have realised it, as I shall show in a moment—has been that the importation of bacon has gone down between 1932 and 1934 by no less than:3,400,000 cwts. That is a drop from 7,600,000 cwts. to 4,300,000 cwts. approximately. But the cost of bacon has not dropped in anything like the same proportion, and the amount of money that we are sending to Denmark for an infinitely reduced amount of exports is not very different. In other words, we were paying to Denmark nearly £21,000,000 in 1932 for 7,600,000 cwts. of bacon, and we are now paying £18,000,000 for only 4,000,000 cwts. Expressed in pounds per cwt., we were paying £2 15s. in 1932 for Danish bacon; now, with reduced imports, we are paying the Danes over £4 per cwt. In other words, if we had purchased the same amount of bacon at the price of 1932, instead of paying to Denmark £17,750,000—nearly £18,000,000—we should only have paid £11,000,000, and the Government might very well have had £6,000,000 in pocket to help the industry instead of coming down on the taxpayers.

Now, if in fact pork had fallen or was falling in price, that might be an argument for this restriction. But the price we are paying for imported pork is going up, and has been going up for several months, and in fact for several years. In 1933 we were paying £2 10s. per cwt. In 1934 that sum had gone up to about £2 11s. 6d. or £2 12s. In January of this year we were paying £2 14s. per cwt.; in February of this year we were paying £2 16s. per cwt. The price is going up and up. What is going to be the effect on the lives of the people of this country when we impose the heavy restrictions on pork indicated by the noble Lord, when already the price is going up without restrictions? We shall have the price rising by perhaps two or three times as much as people are having to pay now for this consumable commodity. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, speaking on February 5, that cheaper and better food was his goal. All I can say is that, if that is the goal of the noble Earl, he is going by a very curious way to get at it. He is going in the opposite direction, and it would be interesting to understand what he means when he says that cheaper and better food is his goal, when the proposal of this restriction on pork will simply mean an enormous increase in the price which the people will have to pay.

I cannot understand why this extension of the Pork Order should be brought in now. We are learning by the Bacon Order some of the disadvantages of this licensing scheme. I noticed that in another place a Member, dealing with the licences, pointed out that when licences are granted, foreign producers, instead of importing at the time when we want it, wait until a shortage has. caused a rise in price, and then come in and sneak the advantage of the rise in price which ought to have gone to our own producers. That is constantly going on and is apparently not being corrected by the Board of Trade. I saw in a report of a speech by the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Baldwin, yesterday, that he said: As far as I can see, the tendency of this Government is now to turn away from quotas and restrictions of trade and to support a system of duties. Why, then, are we suddenly having this extension of the system of quotas and restrictions in face of that decision of the Government Or is it just that the Board of Trade does not know what the Government have decided and is automatically putting into force a restriction without adequately considering the matter?

Then I think that we should have had some information before this restriction was brought in as to how the marketing business is working for bacon. We have had nothing to tell us how the matter is going on. I see that the point was raised by Sir Francis Acland in another place; he said that in his opinion all practicable steps—to quote the Order before your Lordships—for the efficient re-organisation of the pig industry by means of marketing schemes had not been taken. He claimed that they had not been taken, and that in point of fact agricultural marketing as regards pigs was not running an efficient scheme.

We feel that your Lordships' House has not been treated absolutely fairly in this matter. An Order was in force on the 12th March; we are now at the 26th March, and there has been no Paper published giving the reasons for this sudden decision. We feel that the effect on the lives of the people who are eating and needing pork is going to be serious if the price rises to double what it is now. I am not exaggerating at all: if bacon has gone up from £2 15s. to over £4 there is nothing to prevent pork going up from its present price to double what it is. When with an unrestricted entry the price is going up, how infinitely more is it likely to go up if we impose restrictions? We feel that it is inopportune to bring in this Order now before we have fuller information. We therefore propose to oppose the approval of this Order, and to ask the Government to publish a White Paper explaining the real position and to put it before your Lordships' House with a reasoned case before your Lordships' House approves this Order.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting speech, which would have been a little more impressive if it had been based upon the facts of the situation. What are the facts of the situation? We have heard about the rising prices of pork and the dangers to the consumer of the steps that have been taken. Actually retail prices to-day—to take an average quotation, the quotation on the Liverpool Corporation Market—have been from Id. to 2d. per lb. lower in the first three months of this year than in the first three months of last year. That does not look as though retail prices were rising.

LORD MARLEY

I quoted the wholesale prices from the Trade and Navigation Returns.

EARL DE LA WARR

But the noble Lord was talking about the effect on the consumer, and I think he will agree that the retail prices are of infinitely greater interest to the consumer than are the prices given by the noble Lord. Of course we all know that it is perfectly possible to select convenient figures for this purpose, but in this case the figures of the noble Lord are not really the relevant figures. What is going to be the effect of this Order—a tremendous decrease in the supply of pork to this country as compared with the last few years? Not at all. The actual effect is going to be more pork in the market than in 1932 or 1933. What are the facts of the situation? Last year the figure of imports of foreign pork was 580,000 cwt., twice what it was the year before, and four times what it was the year before that, and what we are doing is restricting imports to the average of those three years, and the result will be 50 per cent. above what the figure was in 1933.

That is with regard to foreign imports, and the Dominions, on a voluntary basis, are actually regulating their imports on a somewhat less reduced scale even than that. The noble Lord says there has not been a crash in fie market yet. Quite so, but does he suggest that the Government should always wait before taking action until disaster occurs? It is obvious from the way imports were increasing that we were working up to a crash. The noble Lord mentioned the first two months of this year, when there was a decrease in foreign imports and an increase in Dominion imports. Surely we all know that these monthly figures—especially with regard to countries situated a long way away, from which imports take a very long time to travel—are of very little importance, and we have to take the broad annual figures. On those figures it is perfectly clear what is happening to this market.

Then the noble Lord went on to the question of bacon prices. It is not really strictly relevant to this Order but perhaps your Lordship would wish that I should deal with the points he has raised. He complained that the supply of bacon to the market from imports has been reduced. That is perfectly true—by something over 3,000,000 cwt. Of course he will realise, also, that the home supplies have increased very largely, though admittedly not to that full extent. Surely we all of us appreciate what was the situation in the bacon market when this scheme was brought into operation. The bacon market had dropped to a level of prices which was spreading ruin not merely throughout this country but throughout Denmark, which, I think, is admittedly the most efficient bacon producing country of which we know. Actually in that year the Danish sow population had gone clown by between 15 and 20 per cent., and we were working up to what really, in a year or two, would have been a bacon famine, when prices would have gone up to a level far above the prices to which they have been taken to-day.

What this Government are aiming at in the whole of their marketing policy are not high prices for the producer, or low prices for the consumer, hut fair, stable prices, going right through. That has been, so far as I know, the policy also of the Labour Party itself. I find here, in an interesting little pamphlet entitled The Land and the National Planning of Agriculture, issued in 1932 by the Labour Party, on page 19, a reference to that policy, as follows: Regulation of Imports— …The adoption of a policy of price stabilisation involves, therefore, the acceptance of the principle of regulating imports where necessary. That is precisely the policy which the Government are pursuing—namely, regulating imports in the interests of fair stable prices—a fair price for the producer, and a fair price for the consumer. In view, therefore, of these facts I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to support the Motion proposed by my noble friend.

LORD ELTISLEY

My Lords, I would like, if I might, very respectfully, to say a word in support of this Order. Agriculturists regard it as part of the general policy of developing and expanding the industry of agriculture as a whole in this country. In the words of the White Paper, the Order is introduced because "without this Order the effective organisation and development of the said industry cannot be brought about or maintained." It seems to me that that' is a convincing argument of the necessity of an Order of this kind, and I believe there is general agreement in the nation as a whole as to the need of re-establishing as far as may be practicable the industry of agriculture. In this branch of the industry—namely, the production of pigs and pig products—you have a branch which is applicable to almost every class of worker on the soil. It is a branch of the industry in which the large farmer participates, and in which the small holder plays a big part, and in which even the villager is able to add to the quota. In fact, it is said in certain counties that in driving through a village you can tell what is the price of pork, because the aroma from the various pig sties tells you whether or not the industry is prosperous.

I venture to think that it is a very humble and modest step which is contemplated by this Order. It reduces the supplies of frozen pork from foreign countries to a level still above that of 1932 and 1933, and it is essential, if the regulation of meat generally is to be carried out effectively, that power should be given to regulate the various competing products, because, as we are well aware, meat is interchangeable, and it is easy to upset a balanced scheme if you allow free entry with regard to one particular section or product. I suggest that it is of no practical avail unless you take general steps for regulating the imports as a whole. I know that fears are often expressed by persons associated with the shipping industry and the import industry in this country, that their particular interests may be adversely affected. I do not share that view, because the imports of frozen pork, amounting to 580,000 cwts.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.