Sitting of 26 November 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dumfries Waterworks Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MINORITY TREATIES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any declaration to make with reference to the possible extension of the obligations of minority treaties to other countries not at present bound thereby arising out of the debates in the Sixth Committee of the Eleventh Assembly of the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): No proposal for the extension of the obligations of minority treaties to countries at present not bound by them was put forward during the debates in the Sixth Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations last September. If such a proposal were made in the future, His Majesty's Government would naturally give it their careful consideration.

    EASTERN GALICIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the condition of the inhabitants in Eastern Galicia has been, or is to be, considered by the Minorities Committee of the League of Nations; and whether His Majesty's Government is taking, or has taken any, action in this matter?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information that a petition from the Ukranian Minority in Eastern Galicia has been received by the Secretariat General of the League of Nations, but I am making inquiries at Geneva. It is, of course, the duty of the representative of His Majesty's Government on the Council of the League to examine with due care any petition which may come before that body.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any dispatch on this matter has been received from Warsaw?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is another question dealing with that point.

  ANGOLA (ECONOMIC CONDITIONS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports have recently been received from British Consuls in Portuguese West Africa with reference to the system of forced labour for private profit in operation there; and whether these have been or will be published?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member will be aware that in February, 1929, a report on economic conditions in Angola, from His Majesty's Consul-General at Loanda, was published, in which reference was made to labour conditions in the colony. Such reports as I have received since that date do not indicate that the position has improved, but as these reports only refer to the question incidentally, they would not be suitable for publication.
  Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the attitude taken up at Geneva this year, that it is desirable that the world should have as much publicity as possible about what the Portuguese are doing?

  CHINA.

    EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present situation in China; and what is the present position of the negotiations in relation to extra-territorial rights?
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the question of extra-territoriality between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As regards the present position in China, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on the 19th of November. As regards extra-territoriality, the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, in conversation with His Majesty's Minister on the 20th of November, referred to the draft proposals of His Majesty's Government, and made certain criticisms. I understand that counter proposals are likely to be received shortly.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it proposed to go on with these negotiations, having regard to the unsettled state of the country? Is it not advisable to leave them in abeyance?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am very well aware of the unsettled state of the country, but I do not see that we should improve matters by allowing these negotiations to stand still.
    Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he must negotiate with somebody who can give a responsible undertaking?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, the Government are fully aware of that.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any reply has been sent by the other six Powers which were approached by China.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

    BRITISH CLAIMS.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received information from Shanghai that the claims of British creditors of China are being or will be considered in the negotiations for the consolidation of the unsecured and inadequately secured foreign obligations of China; and, if not, whether he will instruct His Majesty's Minister to take steps to defend the interests of all British creditors?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. The claims of all British creditors are being fully considered in the discussions with the Chinese Government which have been proceeding at Nanking. His Majesty's Minister has made it clear that any solution proposed by the Chinese Government should provide for the payment in full of all valid British claims at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Does that include Mr. Valpy's claim?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot give any information about an individual case.

  RUSSIA.

    DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the present position of the negotiations with the Soviet delegates as to claims and counter claims; and whether he can asure the House that it is still the intention of the Government not to guarantee any loan to the Soviet Russian Government in connection with the debts due to British nationals?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As regards the first part of the question I have nothing to add to my reply of the 19th of November to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). As regards the second part, the policy of His Majesty's Government remains as stated in this House on the 5th November, 1929, and again on the 27th of January last.
    Sir K. WOOD: Arising out of the answer to the first part of the question, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how long he thinks these negotiations are likely to continue, and when there is any likelihood of a statement?
    Mr. HENDERSON: As I have informed the House, we have done all that we can to get on with them, but there are many difficulties.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles that statement with the fact that His Majesty's Government are now—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Kingsley Wood.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Joint Anglo-Soviet Committee

    1281
    appointed to deal with the claims arising from the compulsory acquisition of the property of British nationals by the Soviet Government expect to be in a position to take evidence from claimants?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 19th of November, to which I have, at present, nothing to add.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the time which has elapsed, can the right hon. Gentleman say why no attempt is made to get evidence and to receive the claims of the claimants?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already announced to the House that there are certain difficulties. We are getting on as fast as we can.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report of His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on the subject of forced labour in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, on the 17th of November. His Majesty's Government are prepared to lay as a White Paper the principal ordinances dealing with labour conditions in the Soviet Union.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the White Paper will include the conditions which are laid down as regards the conscription of child labour in Russia also?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think that is an entirely new point, and I must have notice of it.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will those ordinances include the various ordinances of the Soviet Government for the conscription of labour?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have promised to lay papers.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain the distinction between forced labour and slave labour which has been put forward?

    CONSPIRACY CHARGE.
    Sir PENNELL RODDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Soviet Government similar to those officially announced to have been made by the French Government, protesting against the allegation officially advanced in the 10-day defence programme that the British Government have been involved with the French Government and a group of Russian professors in a plot for the invasion of the United States of Soviet Russia?
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to a statement by Krylenko, the official prosecutor of Soviet Russia, in his indictment of certain Russian industrialists, that the Governments of France and England have planned intervention in Russia for 1931; and if he will protest, as the French Government has already done, against this accusation?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The documents, issued to the Russian Press in connection with these proceedings, include a number of depositions by private individuals, in some of which unfounded accusations are made against various British subjects and also against His Majesty's Government. By far the greater part of these accusations relate to the years 1927–1928. The summary accompanying these depositions, citing the alleged offences of the accused, and signed by the Public Prosecutor, contains passages involving another foreign Power, but makes no reference to His Majesty's Government or to any British subject. There are, therefore, no grounds for a protest to the Soviet Government.
    Sir A. KNOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the issue of the paper "Pravda" of the 11th November, which directly charges His Majesty's Government, in agreement with the French Government, with preparing for intervention in Russia next year; and does he not think it is his duty, in the interests of ordinary humanity, to assist these people who are being tried for their lives?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have not seen the paper to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. If he will supply me with

    1283
    any point upon which he thinks I can take further action, I shall be very pleased to have it.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that in addition to the private persons who have substantiated this statement, the Soviet Government themselves, in the trial which is now proceeding, associated themselves with this statement, and added the British Government to it?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will supply me with the information upon which this statement is based I will look into the matter.
    Mr. BROMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if a copy of "Pravda" is supplied to him he will see that it is not one which was printed in this country?

    LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House of the result of the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to the Soviet Government, on 2nd November last, with regard to the arbitral award in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am still awaiting the reply of the Soviet Government.
    Sir W. DAVISON: It is now over a month since the right hon. Gentleman requested a reply, and do we understand that in a matter of this importance he has as yet had no reply from the Ambassador?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is correct.

    SUGAR PURCHASES (BRITISH GUARANTEE).
    Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELLasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what was the cost price delivered at a Russian port of the sugar bought by Russia in Cuba and refined here and guaranteed under our export credit scheme?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am precluded from giving particulars of individual transactions under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme. As the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension I must point out that the sugar in respect of which guarantees were given was bought by Russia here and not in Cuba.

  JAN MAYEN ISLAND.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent recognition by His Majesty's Government of Norwegian sovereignty over Jan Mayen Island, he will state whether His Majesty's Government has at any time since the discovery of the island by Henry Hudson in 1607 laid claim to sovereignty over the island; and, if so, for what reason His Majesty's Government has now abandoned such claim?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government have at no time laid claim to sovereignty over this island. It has certainly been stated that the island was granted by James I in 1618 to the Corporation of Hull; but this grant, if made, was never effective. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Major ROSS: Why have the rights of Hull been so neglected? Is there no representative to safeguard them?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address that question to my predecessor.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) who sits behind him?
  Mr. HENDERSON: It is unnecessary.

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the disarmament of Germany, following the Versailles Treaty of Peace, was agreed to be a preliminary to general disarmament, he will state what steps have been taken during the last 12 years to give it practical effect by the various countries concerned?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is quite impossible, within the limits of an oral answer to a Parliamentary question, to give all the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend. I shall, however, be glad to arrange for him to see an official of my Department who will be prepared to show him all the relevant documents.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress which has been made?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Very far from it.
  Mr. FREEMAN: What further steps are being taken in the matter?

  MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct His Majesty's Minister in Mexico to request the Mexican Government to state the probable date upon which that Government proposes to ratify the agreement made on 25th July last between the committee of bankers and the Mexican Minister for Finance with regard to the 16-year old default of the Mexican Government in its obligations to British investors?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I am asking His Majesty's Minister to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but I would point out that the agreement has to be considered by the Mexican legislature before it can be ratified by the Mexican Government. The latter will not, therefore, presumably, be in a position to indicate in advance the probable date of ratification.

  FOREIGN FILMS (BRITISH INTERESTS).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is customary for British representatives abroad to make formal or informal complaints to foreign Powers concerning the nature of films and plays detrimental to British interests; and, if so, whether any such complaints have been effective in securing the withdrawal of the offending film or play?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's representatives in various countries have from time to time approached the competent authorities concerning films thought to be detrimental to British interests. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, though, in some cases, excisions or modifications have been secured in the films to which objection was taken.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FOREIGN COMMODITIES (DUMPING).
    Mr. HAYCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will ask the British Ambassador to make inquiries concerning certain decrees of the Rumanian Government giving detailed instructions for the manufacture and dumping of a large number of commodities;
    (2) whether he will ask the British Ambassador to make inquiries concerning certain decrees of the German Government giving detailed instructions for the manufacture and dumping of a large number of commodities;
    (3) whether he will ask the British Ambassador to make inquiries concerning certain decrees of the Government of Yugoslavia giving detailed instructions for the manufacture and dumping of a large number of commodities?
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the British Ambassador to make inquiries concerning certain decrees of the Government of Czechoslovakia giving detailed instructions for the manufacture and dumping of a large number of commodities?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information regarding the decrees said to have been issued by the German, Czechoslovak, Yugoslav and Rumanian Governments, but I am prepared to make inquiries of His Majesty's Representatives in the countries in question.

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
    Major NATHANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that for the first time the British Labour party, through the Government, has placed on record and declares that in its opinion preferences within the Empire have been of mutual advantage to all parts of the Empire; whether this statement represents the policy of the Cabinet; and whether, in view of the decision to stabilise existing tariff agreements for a period of three years, it is still intended to remove all existing food duties before this Parliament ends?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that, as my right hon. Friend explained on the occasion in question, "preferences" need not necessarily be tariff preferences but that mutual advantage could be obtained by other means. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 14th April last, in which he said:
    "It is our intention to do so"—i.e., remove existing food duties—"before this Parliament ends—four years hence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1930, col. 2672, vol. 237.]
    There is, therefore, nothing inconsistent between that statement of intention and the Government's present position.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman has purported to answer the first part of the question and the last. Would he mind answering the middle part, whether the statement of the Secretary of State for the Dominions represents the policy of the Cabinet?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is included in the first and the last.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has anything to report to the House in connection with the most recent conference in Manchester between representatives of the Government and representative sections of the cotton trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, and I continued our discussion with representatives of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations of questions arising out of the report of the Committee on the cotton industry. The questions discussed were the value of the formation of larger units as an aid to the restoration of the spinning section; certain technical matters such as the use of Indian cotton, and the effect of external factors on the prosperity of the industry. We also received a deputation representing the sub-committees of the American and Egyptian Spinners' Con-
    1288
    ventions by which it is proposed to regulate the production and price of yarn. The promoters of the American scheme asked that statutory powers should be obtained to secure the universal adoption of the scheme. My right hon. Friend and I promised to give most careful consideration to these proposals, but, as they affect every section of the industry, it will be necessary to obtain the views of others who may be interested before forming any opinion upon them. We hope to continue our discussions with representatives of the manufacturers at an early date.
    Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the meaning of the expression used by his right hon. Friend when he used these words: "That there are supplementary lines of financial assistance yet to be devised by the Government"?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think there must be a misconception on that point. There was much discussion of financial assistance, and, of course, it has always been made perfectly clear there can be no question of Government contribution.
    Mr. BROOKE: Are the trade unions in the cotton industry being consulted upon this question of reorganisation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, certainly. They have their part in the Joint Committee, and the Home Secretary and I saw them separately during our former visit, and will see them again on subsequent visits.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind, and does he think the Government can do something to help the cotton industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, there has been no change of mind at all. We are doing everything in our power by discussion now with the individual sections to promote the necessary reorganisation. That has been our policy all along since the report of the committee was published.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will investigate the possibility of arranging for United Kingdom firms to purchase Southern Rhodesian chrome ore in return for Southern

    1289
    Rhodesian exporters purchasing United Kingdom hardware and textiles, so as to divert to the United Kingdom purchases by Southern Rhodesia which are now placed outside the United Kingdom as a result of the export of Southern Rhodesian chrome ore to non-British countries?
    Mr. GILLETT: No, Sir. This country already satisfies most of her requirements of chromium ore from Southern Rhodesia. The trade returns for last year indicate that of our imports of this commodity, amounting in value to £110,243 in all, nearly £80,000 worth was of Southern Rhodesian origin, while a further £14,000 worth was derived from other sources within the Empire.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the minimum sum which it is proposed to allocate annually to the support of the Empire Marketing Board in order to implement the recommendation of the Imperial Conference regarding the income of that body?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The matter is being considered, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  POLAND.

    UKRANIAN MINORITY.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw concerning the treatment of the Ukranian minority by the Polish authorities; what is the nature of the report; and whether it is intended to take any action?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I have just received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw containing a summary of recent events in Eastern Galicia. The report is now being studied.

    BRITISH CANADIAN SUBJECT'S DETENTION.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information concerning the deten-
    1290
    tion of Dr. William Dey, a British-Canadian subject, on 21st October, 1930, by the Polish authorities at Lemberg; what was the reason for the detention; and whether he is aware that Dr. Dey was refused permission to communicate with the British Consul, Mr. Taylor?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. The circumstances of this case have been reported to me, and I have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw to make appropriate representations to the Polish Government.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY (TRANSFER OF WORK).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what increase in complement has been authorised for the depot record offices, or is the existing staff expected to cope with this additional duty;
    (2) if he will state, with reference to Fleet Orders 1,523 and 1,864 of 1930, what reduction is being effected in the Admiralty staff by the transfer of certain records, etc., to the home ports and Royal Marine divisions?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): A reduction of five has already been made in the clerical staff of the Admiralty on account of this transfer of work, and it is anticipated that a further reduction of seven will ultimately be effected on the same account, making a total reduction of 12. No increase of complement has been authorised for the depot record offices, as the change is expected to admit of the simplification, in certain respects, of the work now performed there.

    BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW.
    Captain BULLOCKasked the First Commissioner of Works if the figures given as to the rent of the British Embassy at Moscow include rates and taxes; and what sum is being spent on putting the building in order?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The system of rating in Moscow is not similar to that in this country. So far as I am aware, the only liabilities falling on the Embassy are in respect of the removal of rubbish, the keeping in proper order of the pave-

    1291
    ment in front of the property, and the removal of snow from the house and frontage. A sum of £13,750 is being spent on adaptations and redecorations.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does not the borough council of Moscow remove the rubbish?
    Mr. LANSBURY: They have not come quite up-to-date, but they are copying the old system of Great Britain with regard to household rubbish.
    Mr. DAY: Is there a borough council of Moscow?
    Captain CAZALETasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the £20,000 paid as an initial sum for the British Embassy in Moscow includes the expenses involved in repairing and decorating the Embassy?
    Mr. LANSBURY: No, Sir. The sum of £20,000 was paid for possession and is distinct from the cost of adaptations and redecoration.

    TEMPORARY WOMEN CLERKS.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many temporary women clerks under 18 years of age are employed in the various Government Departments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): On the 1st April last, which is the latest date for which figures are available, the number of female temporary graded clerks under 18 years of age employed in the various Departments was 49.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LONDON TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships and battle-cruisers, respectively, are now in commission, reserve, and in reserve commission; and what will be the total saving under all heads if the obligations under the Five-Power Naval Treaty signed this year were anticipated by reducing our capital ship strength to 15 ships of the line now?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is very long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman give me the one figure asked for in the last part of the question?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I give a figure of £4,000,000, which is indicated in Command Paper 3547.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it £4,000,000 a year?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No, it is £4,000,000 for the period of the Treaty.
    Following is the answer:
    As regards the first part of the question, apart from the "Iron Duke," which is in commission with a reduced complement as Gunnery Firing Ship, and the "Centurion," which has been rendered unfit for further warlike service and is used as a Target Ship, the following is the position as regards battleships and battle-cruisers, respectively:

    Battleships.

    In commission with full complement

    10

    In commission with reduced complement

    2

    Undergoing trials with reduced complement

    1

    Undergoing refit with reduced complement

    1

    Paid off for preparation for sale

    1

    Battle-cruisers.

    In commission with full complement

    3

    Paid off for large repair

    1

    As regards the second part of the question, there are five Capital Ships to be disposed of when the London Naval Treaty comes into force, namely:

    "Iron Duke."

    "Benbow."

    "Emperor of India."

    "Marlborough."

    "Tiger."

    Of these, the "Iron Duke," which under the Treaty may be retained for training purposes if demilitarised, is at present so used and will be demilitarised in due course. The "Benbow" has already been paid off and is being prepared for sale; and orders have been given for the "Emperor of India" to be paid off also, preparatory to her disposal. There is a good deal of work to be carried out by

    1293
    the dockyards on the ships before they can be handed over to the shipbreakers, but it is anticipated that the remaining two vessels—the "Marlborough" and the "Tiger" will be paid off within six months. The fulfilment of our obligations under the Treaty is being anticipated to a considerable extent with a resultant saving of approximately £4,000,000, as indicated in Command Paper 3547/1930.

    DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (PENSIONS).
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the scales of pension and contributions have not been revised for nearly 100 years; and if he will consider a revision of pensions and contributions of established men in the Royal Dockyards?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement that the pensions of established men working in His Majesty's Dockyards have not been revised for nearly 100 years. In common with those of other established civil servants, the scales of these pensions were revised by the Superannuation Act of 1909. The pensions are non-contributory and I do not propose to consider their revision.
    Sir B. FALLE: Do not the established men contribute to pensions?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Not by actual contributions.
    Sir B. FALLE: Half-a-crown a week.

    CONTRACTS (VICKERS-ARMSTRONG).
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that of the amount of Admiralty orders given to Vickers-Armstrongs little has actually been put in hand by the firm, and that unemployment figures in Barrow-in-Furness are mounting up; if he can say whether any arrangement has been made with this firm as to when the work on Admiralty orders should commence; and if he will see that this work is expedited?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am not aware that there has been any delay in proceeding with Admiralty work which is being executed at Barrow by Vickers-Armstrongs. The contracts specify definite dates for completion of the work which is subject to inspection by Admi-
    1294
    ralty officers to ensure that proper progress is maintained and I have no reason to believe that delivery dates will not be kept.
    Mr. BROMLEY: Would the First Lord of the Admiralty consider in future making some arrangement as to the commencing date in order to obviate any holding back and creating unemployment?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no information that there has been any holding back. It is usual, after the acceptance of tenders, for time to elapse for the necessary technical preparations and detailed drawings and the like. I do not think it was possible that it could have been done sooner.
    Earl WINTERTON: in view of the very serious charge which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) has made, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, and give an emphatic denial to those allegations. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness if he is prepared to repeat his statement outside.
    Mr. BROMLEY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I claim your protection from the insulting asides of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, who has asked me to repeat outside some imaginary allegation which I have not made. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me, if you will, from this kind of insinuation, because the Noble Lord may be taken at his word some time.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a perfectly well-known rule of this House that any hon. Member may challenge another hon. Member who makes a statement containing a most serious allegation against an outside body, in this case, an allegation that a firm or firms had attempted deliberately to cause unemployment, to make that statement outside the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a very well-known rule that allegations against individuals or firms are not allowed in questions in this House and consequently should not be allowed in supplementary questions. Had I noticed that the hon. Member was making an allegation, I should have called him to order.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraws!
    Mr. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it has not always been the practice in this House that questions referring to Government contracts may be challenged in the manner indicated in this question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Allegations reflecting on a firm or anybody else are not allowed in questions.
    Mr. BROMLEY: Further to that point of Order. With all respect to you, and with great regret, seeing that you, the President of this assembly, did not know what was not there, as you have indicated, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you are prepared to ask the Noble Lord to withdraw his insinuation?
    Earl WINTERTON: Withdraw your allegation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is somewhat difficult sometimes in regard to supplementary questions to catch exactly what was said. I think we had better allow this matter to drop.

    ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the difficulty admitted in July last in getting men for the Royal Navy to serve as engine-room artificers has been overcome; and, if so, how many of the men examined at Chatham, Devon-port and Plymouth were found suitable for the work?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of men examined and entered after passing the trade test at Chatham, Devonport and Portsmouth—it is assumed the question should have read "Portsmouth" instead of "Plymouth"—for Acting Engine-Room Artificers Fourth Class between 1st August and 15th November, 1930, is 45.
    Mr. MOSESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, seeing that in the past men applying for services as engine-room artificers in the Royal Navy had to secure 60 per cent. marks in their tests, etc., to qualify, in recent examinations the marks necessary to qualify were 40 per cent. at Chatham and 30 per cent. at Portsmouth; and
    1296
    why the system of marking is not the same at all parts?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The difference in marking referred to is accounted for by variations in the nature of the test jobs at the ports in question. I wish to state specifically, however, that there has been no lowering of the standard required.
    Mr. MOSESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what pension is paid to engine-room artificers and chief engine-room artificers on completion of 22 years' service; and whether pension is counted to men invalided four, six, or eight months after any completed year which falls short of the full pensionable term of service?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The rates of pension vary according to circumstances, but the present average is £98 a year for an engine-room artificer and £99 a year for a chief engine-room artificer. In regard to the latter part of the question, the constituent elements of a pension, i.e., basic service rate and rank additions are allowed on complete years of service only.
    Mr. MOSES: In the event of a man being invalided with 10 months to his credit, is the whole of that period taken into consideration or is it absolutely lost to the man in question?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: It must be taken upon the actual completed year, because we must work out our scheme on an actuarial basis.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Another promise gone west.

  FOREIGN WARSHIP BUILDING (GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY).
  Mr. MARKHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the comparable figures of foreign warship building carried out by Great Britain and Italy in 1924 and 1929, respectively?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the desired figures.
  Following is the table:

  —

  1924.

  1929.

  1930.

  Great Britain.

  Italy.

  Great Britain.

  Italy.

  Great Britain.

  Italy.

  Cruisers

  …

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2*

  Flotilla Leaders

  …

  —

  —

  4

  2

  1*

  —

  Destroyers

  …

  —

  —

  4

  4

  —

  8(4*)

  Submarines

  …

  —

  —

  3

  6

  —

  6*

  Submarines Depot Ships

  …

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1*

  Oilers

  …

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  River Gunboats

  …

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  C. M. B's

  …

  2

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  Gunboats

  …

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  4(2*)

  Patrol Vessels

  …

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Items starred (*) are included in the 1929 lists, and not yet completed.

  EAST AFRICA.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. CHARLES BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the statement in the Secretary of State's Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa, that persons of every race, coloured no less than white, have a right to equal treatment in accordance with their several needs, the Government of Kenya Colony has yet advised him as to any amendments which will be required in existing legislation in order to bring it into strict conformity with the policy laid down in the said memorandum?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Yes, Sir. A telegraphic statement has been received from the Acting Governor of Kenya. From this it appears that a few amendments in the Colony legislation may be desirable; but the matter cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by telegraph, and the Acting Governor will forward a comprehensive statement by mail for ray Noble Friend's consideration.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the implication in the question that the several races are not receiving equal treatment?
    Dr. SHIELS: I did not notice any implication.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which has been caused to the white popu-
    1298
    lation of Northern Rhodesia by the issue of Command Paper 3573, the Memorandum on Native Policy in East Africa, the Government will issue at an early date a further document to modify or to explain more fully the native policy expounded in that memorandum?
    Dr. SHIELS: His Majesty's Government have no intention of modifying their native policy. The memorandum has been fully explained to the elected members and other residents of Northern Rhodesia by the Governor, in a statement of which a summary was published in the Press of the 29th October.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the people living on the spot are much the best judges?
    Dr. SHIELS: If that were true, and if that advice had always been acted upon, we should still have had slavery in the West Indies.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the hoe. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the permanent European population of Northern Rhodesia is being increased at the present time to the extent of something like 4,000 a year by immigration of British subjects from Southern Rhodesia and the Union; and does he not think it highly desirable, if a serious crisis is to be avoided, that the Europeans should be taken into consultation?
    Dr. SHIELS: We have had full evidence of the views of those to whom the Noble Lord refers, in the memorandum, of which he is well aware, and a reply by His Majesty's Government has been sent.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that we have starvation in the West Indies under the present Government's policy?
    Mr. BOYCE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to my original question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question of native policy in Northern Rhodesia on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House at an early date.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations have been invited to express approval or disapproval of both White Papers issued by the Government in regard to East Africa before the proposals therein contained are considered by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament; and whether the Permanent Mandates Commission has been asked to express views on the White Papers generally or only on the limited point as to whether the policies proposed are compatible with the terms of the actual mandate for Tanganyika Territory?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. The statement of conclusions with regard to Closer Union in East Africa has been communicated to the Permanent Mandates Commission, who have thus an opportunity of commenting on it if they so wish. The other White Paper, on Native Policy, has not been communicated officially.
    Captain MACDONALD: Do I understand that the White Papers which have been issued are having a very serious and far-reaching effect upon the future policy of His Majesty's Government in mandated territories; and do I understand that they were issued without consultation with the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations?
    Dr. SHIELS: I do not admit that there will be a serious effect in the sense which the hon. and gallant Member seems to indicate. The real point is that the statement on Closer Union had a definite relationship with the work of the Mandates Commission, but the other Paper was a general statement of policy which had no specific reference to mandated territories.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: What does the hon. Gentleman understand by the word "communicated"? What does the phrase "communicated to the Permanent Mandates Commission" mean? Are they asked to express an opinion, or are they to take it as a decision of His Majesty's Government?
    Dr. SHIELS: I should not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would require me to define what "communicated" means. It means "sent." The papers have been sent to the Permanent Mandates Commission. As I have said, if they care to make any comment upon them, that is their affair, but they have not been invited to do so.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the hon. Gentleman publish tile covering letter that went with the documents?

    PRISONERS (CLASSIFICATION).
    Mr. BARRasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to secure the classification of prisoners and the establishment of separate reformative institutions for young offenders in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, respectively, since the publication of the annual report for 1928 for these Colonies?
    Dr. SHIELS: As the answer is necessarily a, long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Speaking generally, prisoners are classified in all three Territories according to the length of sentence, and, again, in certain cases, these classes are divided into first offenders and persons previously convicted. So far as circumstances permit, the classes are kept separate.
    As regards young offenders:
    In Kenya, an attempt is being made to introduce a modified form of Borstal training.
    In Uganda, all juveniles are transferred to the juvenile section of the new central gaol at Luzira, which is now nearing completion. When complete, this gaol will provide accommodation on most modern lines for 1,000 prisoners, with separate sections for Europeans, Asiatics and natives, both male and female, as well as for juveniles and remand

    1301
    prisoners. At the present moment the Government of Uganda has also under consideration a Reformatory Schools Bill.
    In Tanganyika, there is no institution yet for juvenile offenders, the number under detention at any time being extremely small.
    I would add that the question of juvenile offenders received special consideration at the recent Colonial Office Conference, and my Noble Friend has now recommended to Colonial Governments generally the introduction of legislation on the lines of a draft Bill which was prepared by a committee over which I presided, and which is in accord with modern British legislation and opinion on the subject.

    NYASALAND (CROWN LANDS BILL).
    Mr. BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received recommendations from the Governor of Nyasaland for the modification of the Crown Lands Bill, which has been before the legislative council of Nyasaland for the past two and a-half years; and, if so, whether the Government accept those recommendations?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has not been able to accept all the recommendations which have been received from the Governor of Nyasaland with regard to the Crown Lands Bill. They are still under discussion.

  CEYLON (EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN).
  Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any recent report has been received from the Governor of Ceylon on the question of Ceylonese parents selling their children for domestic service and the conditions under which these children are employed; and will he give the House particulars?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Secretary of State received from the Governor of Ceylon in September last the draft of an Ordinance which it was proposed to introduce in the legislative council to regulate the employment of children as domestic servants in Ceylon. I have ascertained from the Governor that the draft Ordinance has
  1302
  recently been read a second time in the legislative council, and has now been referred to a Select Committee, which has not yet reported.
  Mr. DAY: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to have a copy of the Ordinance placed in the Library?
  Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.

  KENYA

    PRISON ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. BARRasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, have been taken to abate the overcrowding of the prisons in Kenya referred to the report of 1928, and to provide sufficient cubic air space for prisoners at night?
    Dr. SHIELS: There has been a general improvement in the health of the inmates of prisons in Kenya during 1929 and the first six months of 1030 as compared with 1928; but the relation between the sick rate and the type of accommodation afforded to prisoners, especially in the Nairobi prison, requires further investigation. In connection with a proposal to provide a sum of £95,000 for prison accommodation in the new Kenya loan schedule, which is now under consideration, it is intended that a committee should be set up in the Colony to make recommendations as to the best way of dealing with long-term prisoners, whether by the establishment of a central prison or by the establishment of several district prisons; and it has been suggested to the Acting Governor by my Noble Friend that this committee should inquire into the question of prison accommodation in the Colony generally, including the provision of adequate cubic space For each prisoner.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman dissent in any way from the facts alleged in the question; and, if he does not dissent, how is it that, after two years have elapsed, these disgraceful conditions are allowed to continue?
    Dr. SHIELS: I think it is generally agreed that the prison accommodation in Kenya is not entirely satisfactory; but, during the two years to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, very

    1303
    definite improvements have been made, and I have announced measures for dealing with the matter still further.

    SAMBURU TRIBE.
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Samburu tribe in Kenya Colony is still occupying their lands; and for what purpose was the survey for farms recently carried out in the Loroki Hills?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. The Samburu are still in occupation of the area to which they were given provisional access. The question of making other arrangements for the tribe is still under the consideration of the Kenya Government, and no definite recommendation has yet been submitted. If a survey has recently been made of the nature stated by my hon. Friend on the Loroki plateau, it can be be provisional only, as no new arrangement for land for the Samburu could be made without reference to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    ZAMBESI BRIDGE.
    Mr. BOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of contracts which have been let in respect of the approaches to the projected Lower Zambesi Bridge; the value of the contracts so let; the nationalities of the contractors to whom they have been let; the number of Europeans employed on the construction of these approaches; and what proportion of these persons are of British nationality?
    Dr. SHIELS: The main approach is to be constructed by the Cleveland Bridge arid Engineering Company, a British firm, at a cost of £355,348, which is included in the total figure of £1,434,337 already communicated to the House. Certain preliminary work on these approaches has already been done by the companies concerned, who have made local contracts for parts of the construction. I have not the particulars desired of these small local contracts, but will obtain them if the hon. Member wishes.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the total amount of the contracts that will come to this country?
    Dr. SHIELS: I gave that a few days ago; I am sorry I have not the figures with me now.
    Mr. BOYCE: As the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that he will obtain particulars, will he please do so?
    Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Has any date been fixed for the completion of this work; and, if not, can the hon. Gentleman say approximately when the work will be finished?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir; I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can we have some idea as to what will be the effect in this country as regards employment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

  NIGERIA (CHIEFS ORDINANCE).
  Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the subjects of the chiefs against whom action may be taken by the Governor of Nigeria under the Appointment and Deposition of Chiefs Ordinance will be consulted in any way; and whether any means of appeal is provided against decisions taken by the Governor under the Ordinance?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Governor will no doubt take all steps that appear to him reasonable and desirable to carry out fully the preliminary inquiry which the Ordinance requires, and which would include consideration of local public opinion. Action under the Ordinance is regarded as executive rather than judicial, and no appeal to a Court of Law is provided in the Ordinance. There is, however, an appeal to the Secretary of State through the Governor.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing the success attending the Irish lottery on behalf of the Dublin hospitals, he will give facilities for the passing of legislation to legislation in this country the holding of sweepstakes or lotteries in aid of London hospitals or for kindred purposes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can hold out no prospect of time being found for the discussion of this subject.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not a fact that our laws concerning lotteries and sweepstakes are the laughing stock of the world?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question had better be addressed to the Home Office.
  Mr. FOOT: Can the Prime Minister now give his attention to the request that has been made for the setting up of a Select Committee to deal with the whole matter of the existing gambling laws of the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry I have not that in mind. If the hon. Member will put a question down, I will give attention to the point.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    INSURANCE FUND.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has decided to set a limit to the indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This indebtedness is already limited by statute.
    Captain MACDONALD: Do we understand that the Government intend to continue to exceed their borrowing powers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We do not exceed our borrowing powers. We can only borrow by leave of the House of Commons.

    DOMESTIC TRAINING CENTRES, BURNLEY AND SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Minister of Labour how long the domestic training centres for middle-aged women at Burnley, and Sheffield have now been in operation; how many women have commenced and completed the courses, respectively, at each training centre; and how many of the trainees have been found employment as a result?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The Burnley Centre was opened on 19th June last and the first course ended on the 15th October. 42
    1306
    women entered and 37 completed the course. The corresponding dates for Sheffield were 10th July and 19th November, and 40 women entered of whom 30 completed the course. These courses which are conducted by the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment are experimental, and as the hon. Member will see the first courses have only just been completed. I am having detailed inquiry made as to the results of the training and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
    Mr. BROOKE: Do they go voluntarily or are they compelled to go?
    Miss BONDFIELD: They go voluntarily.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that these training centres for middle-aged women are likely to be successful, and does she not consider it desirable to limit them to the younger women?
    Miss BONDFIELD: These are two experimental courses to see if anything can be done for the middle-aged women. am now waiting for the full report as to whether they shall he continued.

    POLITICAL PARTIES (COMMITTEE).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Labour whether any further meetings of the three-party conference on unemployment are to take place; if so, when; and, if not, whether the members of the conference have been so informed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The proceedings of this Committee were definitely brought to a conclusion at its last meeting a little time ago.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Lady reply to the last part of the question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is "yes."

  AVIATION.

    AIR SERVICES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state the present position with regard to the establishment of an air mail from this country to the Far East; whether the Indian Government are still refusing permission to Imperial Airways to

    1307
    operate the route from Karachi onwards over India; and, if so, what is the reason?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): A weekly air service for the carriage of passengers, goods and mails between London and Karachi is already being operated by Imperial Airways, Limited, under an agreement with the Air Ministry. The company is also operating, under charter from the Government of India, an extension between Karachi and Delhi, as an Indian State air service. The Government of India are also providing a series of aerodromes between Calcutta and Victoria Point, but the route will not be ready for operation before the end of the year. The recent Imperial Conference has expressed the hope that an eastward extension of the regular weekly air service between England and India will be inaugurated as soon as possible. Imperial Airways, Limited have submitted tentative proposals to provide for a weekly air mail service between England and Australia via Calcutta, Rangoon and Singapore; these are at present under consideration. Proposals for the operation of an Indian State air service on the section between Karachi and Calcutta are understood to be under the consideration of the Government of India.
    Mr. MANDER: Why is the Government of India holding up this great scheme of Imperial development?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not prepared to accept the implication of the question. In any case, it will have to be put to the Secretary of State for India.
    Earl WINTERTON: Do we understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the portion of the service from Karachi to Delhi is now in actual operation, that is to say that there is a weekly service?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think it is more than a weekly service.

    SCHNEIDER TROPHY RACE.
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, with regard to next year's Schneider trophy race, he will remove the conditions attaching to the loan of the Super-marine S 6 and the Gloster-Napier sea-
    1308
    planes and will allow officers of the Royal Air Force to participate in the contest; and whether he has had any conferences with the Royal Aero Club on the matter?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The International Aeronautical Federation is, I understand, holding a meeting early next month to discuss certain outstanding questions with regard to next year's Schneider trophy race. Arrangements have provisionally been made for a meeting after this date between the Air Ministry and the Royal Aero Club. In the meantime, I cannot usefully make any announcement on the questions raised by my hon. Friend.

    MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of corporations that have included in Bills promoted by them provisions relating to the acquisition of land for aerodromes; and whether he has had any notification of such land being acquired?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: In reply to the first part of the question, the number, so far as I am aware, is five. As regards the second part, no official notification has reached the Air Ministry, but in one case I understand that the land has been acquired.
    Mr. DAY: Has permission to be obtained from the Air Ministry before this land can be purchased?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: No, the permission is embodied in certain local Acts and also in the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930.
    Mr. DAY: It is not the Air Ministry that is holding up the building of these aerodromes?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Certainly not.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that it is no longer necessary to obtain these special powers in each case?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already answered to that effect.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    FLYING ACCIDENTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for

    1309
    Air (1) how many deaths have occurred in the Royal Air Force from flying accidents this year; and how many deaths occurred in flying machines not fitted with safety-slot devices during this year;
    (2) to what he attributes the large number of deaths in the Royal Air Force during the current year; what is the reason of the increase on previous years; what steps are being taken for safety devices; and whether, in cases where fatal accidents have occurred, the occupants have had parachutes?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The number of deaths clue to flying accidents in the Royal Air Force this year is 62. This is, I regret to say, an increase over last year's figure, but is practically the average for the same period in the five preceding years, when much less flying was done. The important point in considering this question is the proportion of fatal accidents to the amount of flying done. For the period January to October, 1930, this proportion, although not so low as in 1929, is considerably lower than for any of the years from 1921 onwards. A downward movement has thus been maintained, though not at a uniform rate. Of the 62 persons killed this year, 35 were in aircraft not fitted with slots or with slots not in operation, while 54 were supplied with parachutes. As regards safety devices, constant attention is given to the whole subject of the best means of improving the safety of flying, and to the development of any devices that will do this. As a result, there has been a progressive increase in the safety of flying in the Royal Air Force.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Could not the hon. Gentleman cut down the number of flying deaths which have occurred owing to the flying machines not being fitted with safety slots?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I am afraid it is necessary for some amount of flying practice to be undertaken in machines not fitted with slots.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Were there any accidents to machines fitted with slots?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: There are accidents in machines with slots, but not because of the dots by any means.

    THORNABY AERODROME (WAGES).
    Mr. F. RILEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his
    1310
    attention has been drawn to the employment of labourers at the Thornaby-on-Tees aerodrome at the wages of 11¾d. per hour; whether he is aware that the district rate paid to labourers engaged on general work not identified with any particular industry is 1s. 1½d. per hour; whether he is aware that this latter rate is the lowest rate paid by the local authority and enforced by the Fair Wages Clause included in contracts signed by all contractors carrying out work on behalf of the local authority; and whether he will have the matter examined with a view to a rectification of the wages paid?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The practice of the Air Ministry, as well as of other Government Departments, is to pay labourers engaged on general miscellaneous work a generalised rate based on the general level of wages in the district. The rate of 47s. for a 48 hour week which is being paid to labourers by the Air Ministry at Thornaby aerodrome was arrived at after a full investigation of local conditions, and in this connection it may be mentioned that in this district the rates paid to labourers in the engineering industry, shipbuilding yards and the iron trade are 43s. 6d., 39s. 6d., and 39s. 1d., respectively, for a week of 47 hours. I am satisfied, therefore, that the rate paid by the Air Ministry is a fair one and compares favourably with those paid to labourers in other trades.
    Mr. RILEY: Is it to be understood that there are now two district rates applying to local authorities, or have local authorities been relieved of the condition of the Fair Wages Clause: further, whether the usual practice in recruiting this labour was followed of appealing to the Employment Exchange?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Without notice, I cannot answer the last part of the question, but I understand that local authorities can offer what wages they like. I do not know that the Fair Wages Clause is imposed on them.
    Mr. KELLY: Under what authority and by what decision was it laid down that the Fair Wages Clause can be at such a point as the hon. Gentleman has given us that the wages should not be the highest current in the district?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the Fair Wages Clause itself.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (AMALGAMATION).
    Mr. SAWYERasked the Minister of Transport whether he will introduce legislation to enforce complete amalgamation of the railway companies, with a view to economy of expenditure and the reduction of industrial friction?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I propose to await the issue of the final report of the Royal Commission on Transport before considering the question of legislation on this subject.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Does not the Minister agree that the only way to secure better service on the railways and better treatment of the lower-paid workers with regard to wages and dismissals is by the State taking over the ownership and control?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think the question of railway disputes is not for me but for the Minister of Labour. The question of transport policy is for me and I can add nothing to my answer.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has not amalgamation meant the doubling of fares?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects that the report will he issued?
    Mr. MORRISON: I hope that the report of the Royal Commission, though I cannot be certain, will be published by the end of the year.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE - WHITEasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the increased traffic congestion in Central London caused by long-distance chars-a-bancs; and if he proposes to set up, to avoid this, parking places for such vehicles in the outer districts of London?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave yesterday to a somewhat similar
    1312
    question by the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville). I am forwarding a copy of the question and answer to the hon. Member.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that there is an over generous supply of London omnibuses during the non-rush hours, that this congests the streets, and that they are mainly empty?

    TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to state the names of the persons appointed by him under the terms of the Road Traffic Act to serve as traffic commissioners for the various areas of England, Wales and Scotland: and, if not, when will he be able to make a statement?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I hope to be in a position to announce the majority of the appointments shortly.
    Major GLYN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, if I put a question down in a week's time, he will he able to give an answer?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am afraid that I cannot say, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will do no harm by putting down a question.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether at the same time he can give the House any information as to their remuneration?
    Mr. MORRISON: I will consider whether that is desirable.

    ROAD PASSENGER SERVICES.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISEasked the Minister of Transport when it is the intention of the Ministry to reorganise and co-ordinate the various omnibus and coach services; and whether the road service licences will apply when the first application under the new Act is made or whether these licences will be required only by degrees when applications for renewal fall due?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the duty of issuing road service licences, by means of which it will be possible to co-ordinate public road passenger services, is laid upon the Traffic Commissioners. It is my intention to bring into operation on

    1313
    1st January next the provisions of the Act necessary to enable the Commissioners to receive applications for such licences and to come to a decision thereon. The requirement however, that omnibus and motor coach services cannot be operated except under a road service licence issued by the Commissioners will not be brought into force before 1st April, 1931. I hope that it may then be possible to effect a complete change over from the present system of licences to that provided for in the Road Traffic Act. It may, however, be necessary to have recourse to the provisions of Section 96 of the Act to cover a transitional period if such a course should prove necessary.

    MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that during the past few weeks there has been an unusual demand for and distribution of motor driving licences available during 1931 as a result of the desire of many people to avoid the obligation of filling in the new licensing forms; and whether, with a view to reducing as far as possible the number of physically unfit drivers on the road before the speed limit is removed, he will take steps to obtain a declaration of physical fitness from all those who have obtained driving licences since the 1st October of this year?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am not aware that there has recently been any unusual demand for motor drivers' licences. I have no power to call for a declaration of physical fitness from persons who have obtained drivers' licences under the Motor Car Act, 1903.

    BISHOP'S CASTLE RAILWAY.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a copy of a resolution recently forwarded to him by the borough council of Bishop's Castle on the subject of the Bishop's Castle railway; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have received to-day a copy of a resolution passed by the Bishop's Castle Town Council recommending that the Great Western Railway Company should take over and work the Bishop's Castle Rail-
    1314
    way. I propose to bring the resolution to the attention of the Great Western Railway Company.

    ROAD SURFACES (DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the public inconvenience and loss caused by the frequent disturbance of road surfaces by public utility undertakings, effect can be given to the suggestion which has reached him from Wiltshire and other local authorities that power in this matter should be vested in the road authorities concerned?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The right of public utility undertakings to open the highway for the purpose of laying and repairing service mains and connections is governed by Statute; but I understand that in many districts arrangements are in force whereby the reinstatement of the road surface is performed by the road authority at the expense of the undertaking.
    Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Member use his influence to get that practice more widely extended?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am always in favour of public enterprise.

  BOTANIC GARDENS, REGENT'S PARK (LEASE).
  Mr. CADOGANasked the First Commissioner of Works whether and, if so, when the Royal Botanic Society is to be made to vacate the Botanic Gardens in Regent's Park; whether the Commissioners of Crown Lands have decided not to renew the lease when it runs out in 1932; whether the Royal Botanic Society will receive any compensation for what has been spent on these grounds during the years of their tenancy; and to what use the gardens will be turned when taken over by the Commissioners of Crown Lands?
  Mr. LANSBURY: For reasons already given in this House, the lease of the Botanic Gardens in Regent's Park is not to be renewed in 1932. The arrangements for the conclusion of the tenancy are a matter between the Society and the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The whole question of the future use of the gardens is, as I have already informed the House, under consideration.
  Mr. CADOGAN: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that 100,000 persons visited the gardens last year and that therefore they serve a public purpose?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I expect that several hundred thousands of people will visit them when they are thrown open to the public.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are they not to have compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act?

  IRISH FREE STATE (FOREIGN PRODUCE).
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the embargo on the importation into the Irish Free State of foreign oats and other produce; and whether this embargo will extend to re-exports from this country into the Irish Free State?
  Mr. GILLETT: According to my information no such embargo is in force.

  SCOTLAND (SMALLHOLDINGS).
  Mr. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the register of smallholdings is revised from time to time, as provided in Section 33 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; whether it is at present up to date; whether, and where, the public can have access to the register; and whether it is used, and is found of assistance, by the Department of Agriculture in order to prevent smallholdings dropping outside the scope of the Small Holdings Acts?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The compilation of such a register was begun in 1912 but was suspended on the outbreak of War. The question of commencing the work of compilation afresh was considered in 1920, but it was decided, having regard to the expense involved and the lack of powers to obtain all the information required for the register, that the compilation of a register should be left in abeyance. I have decided, however, to examine the whole question further.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is a statutory duty under the Act of 1911 and that he has no option but to obey?
  Mr. ADAMSON: I am aware of that fact.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when it is proposed that Sir Herbert Stanley should take over from the Governor-General of South Africa the functions of High Commissioner for Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland; and whether it is proposed that the new High Commissioner should reside and have his headquarters in Southern Rhodesia or in the Union of South Africa and, if the latter, where?
  Mr. THOMAS: According to present arrangements, Sir Herbert Stanley will take up his new appointment in April next. He will reside and have his headquarters at Cape Town, where the High Commissioner's office has hitherto been situated, though it is contemplated that he should spend a part of each year at Pretoria. As regards the reference in the question to Southern Rhodesia, I may explain that the duties of the High Commissioner for South Africa in regard to Southern Rhodesia consist of certain supervisory functions in relation to native affairs.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the latter functions in relation to Southern Rhodesia will be undertaken by Sir Herbert Stanley and not by the Governor-General?
  Mr. THOMAS: The real reason for this appointment is in consequence of the changed position of the Governor-General in relation to a Dominion. We are responsible for native policy, and, the Governor-General now being responsible to the Dominion Minister, I could not undertake the responsibility of having someone controlling native policy who was not directly responsible to me.

  SUNDAY TRADING, BRECONSHIRE.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take with regard to the resolution he has received from the quarter sessions of Breconshire, calling attention to illicit Sunday trading carried on mainly by foreigners under the guise of supplying refreshments?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The Resolution referred to asked for amending legislation to strengthen the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act against Sunday trading. My right hon. Friend sympathises with the object in view, but experience has shown that this matter is highly controversial, and he regrets that in the state of public business he can see no prospect of any Government legislation on this subject at present.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (TREATMENT).
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Home Secretary whether it is still his intention to introduce legislation to amend the Children Act, 1908, incorporating the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders; and, if so, whether he can give the House any indication as to when such legislation will be introduced?
  Mr. SHORT: Yes, Sir. The Bill is being drafted and it is hoped that it may be introduced at an early date.

  TITHE RENT CHARGES.
  The following Question stood. upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. F. RILEY
  76. To ask the hon. Member for Carlisle, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he can inform the House what is the annual total sum now accruing to Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of tithe rent charges in England; and what is the estimated total sum that would accrue if the tithes were gathered in on the originally fixed basis.
  Mr. RILEY: On a point of Order. I asked Question 76, but I did not receive any reply. That left me in some confusion in regard to the question. Can I be informed in regard to that question now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member to whom the question was addressed does not appear to be here. I cannot give the hon. Member the answer.

BUILDINGS (ESCAPE FROM FIRE).
Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further and better provision with respect to means of escape from buildings in case of fire, and for purposes connected therewith."
Unfortunately, it is the case that there are a very large number of buildings which, either through faulty construction or because there has been neglect to provide proper means of escape, are veritable death traps in case of fire arising. From time to time fire does break out and life is lost and then the whole country is horrified. This Bill was promoted in the first instance, by the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers Association, whose members in the course of their business are called upon to visit every corner of the country, and who have very painful cause to be aware of the deficiencies which this Bill seeks to remedy. The decision of the Association to turn to Parliament for legislation against the danger which this Bill seeks to remedy was due to an outbreak of fire at an hotel in the North of England, in Blackburn, in the early part of 1929, as a result of which two of their members were burnt to death, and a third was seriously injured, while others escaped with their lives but with the loss of all their clothes and other belongings.
The first Clause of the Bill provides that in the case of every new building which is more than two stories in height or where the upper storey of any one floor is more than 22 feet from the ground there shall be provided such means of escape for the persons employed therein or sleeping therein or resorting thereto as may be considered reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The buildings to which these conditions shall apply are tenement dwellings, flats,

1319
maisonettes or buildings which are to be used as hotels, boarding houses, boarding schools, nursing homes and the like. It is suggested that no such building shall be occupied until a certificate has been given by the local authority that adequate means have been provided and that they exist in working order.
The second Clause provides in regard to existing buildings that if in the opinion of the local authority such building is not already provided with adequate means of escape in the case of fire arising, they may call upon the owner, by notice served in writing, to make such provision as may be considered reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, and the owner shall then take the necessary steps to make such provision. The third Clause provides that similar conditions shall apply in the case of buildings which are being converted and are to be used for any of the purposes which I have just described. A further Clause seeks to provide that in hotels and similar buildings there shall be adequate lighting of passages during the hours of darkness. The Clause will also give powers to local authorities to require the owners to provide certain forms of mechanical sprinklers and mechanical apparatus for the extinction of fire.
These are the main outlines of the Bill, which also contains a Clause providing that anyone who is aggrieved by any provision of the Bill shall have the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, if he feels constrained to take that course. The Bill was presented to the House last Session and as a result of the publicity and scrutiny which followed it has received an extraordinary amount of support. It is supported by the Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of Civil Engineers and the Institute of Fire Brigades. The Institute of Auctioneers and Valuers, who from the nature of their occupation are interested, are in favour of the Bill. It is a non-party Bill and as far as I am aware there is no opposition to it in any quarter whatever. Therefore I ask leave to introduce the Bill and express a hope that facilities may be granted for it at a later stage.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Graham White, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Dukes, Mr. Foot, Mr. Tinne, Mr.
1320
Egan, Dr. Burgin, Mr. Philip Oliver, and Mr. Thomas Snowden.

BUILDINGS (ESCAPE FROM FIRE) BILL,
"to make further and better provision with respect to means of escape from buildings in case of fire, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

SPIRITUALISM AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH (EXEMPTION) BILL.
Mr. KELLY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relieve spiritualists and mediums from prosecution under the enactments relating to witchcraft and vagrancy whilst genuinely exercising their psychic powers whether in religious practice or scientific investigation."
I wish that someone more qualified than myself was in charge of this Measure so that it might reach the Statute Book speedily. It is amazing that in this year of grace this country should still deny religious freedom to certain sections of the community. It is rather a blot upon the country to find prosecution and even persecution operating not only against those who profess the spiritualist faith but also against those who are connected with the scientific investigations which these particular bodies are undertaking. Very many eminent men and women are members of this particular faith. It is perhaps only fair to the House for me to say that I am not a member of this particular organisation, but when I realize the eminent people who are doing such splendid work and who are adherents to the spiritualist faith I wonder all the more why we allow Statutes under the Witchcraft and Vagrancy Act, which may be used still against people who are doing such splendid work, to continue to operate. I have tried to picture the feelings of the country if that great lovable soul, that great writer and doctor who recently died, Conan Doyle, and that great scientist Sir Oliver Lodge, had been hauled before the courts on the evidence of some informer and had to prove that they were not rogues and vagabonds. Yet that is the position at this moment. Any one of these fine gentle souls who

1321
are connected with this movement might at any moment be hauled before the courts.
It may be a surprise to some hon. Members to know that only one penalty can be imposed. There is no question of a fine. The only penalty under the Act of 1735 is one year's imprisonment, and once every quarter during that term of imprisonment to be placed in the pillory of the market town in the county where the information was laid. That is the law at the present time, and it may be operated against eminent people who are connected with this wonderful organisation. I admit that the penalty has not been imposed upon them, but there is prosecution and persecution going on at the moment. Many of those who desire to play their part in the faith in which they believe are in dreadful fear of prosecution, not for any offence or for injury to others, but because they may be professing that faith, and, what is even better, putting it into practice. But it is not only the medium who may be brought before the courts. Many hon. Members of this House are likely to be brought within the meshes of the law. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It may be any hon. Member. They may be presiding at some gathering in connection with this organisation and it only requires the information to be laid; and we know how informers can prepare their evidence. There may be hon. Members who would not mind very much if some hon. Members were dealt with in this way, but is it to the credit of this country that we should deny religious freedom to these people, whose only object is to put into practice what their conscience has dictated.
It is the proud boast of this country that it gives freedom, but we can hark claim that we are a freedom-loving people if we still leave hanging over the head of this great organisation, composed of some of the gentlest in our nation, the possibility of these prosecutions and the penalties attaching to them. Because of that danger, I am asking for this Bill to be carried. It has but one operative Clause, which is that certificates may be given by the genuine organisations in this movement, under the approval of the Home Secretary, which would assure the community against any of that fraud which is operating under the title of
1322
Spiritualism and psychic research at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "A coupon!"] You may speak of it as a coupon if you like, but, as far as I am concerned, I would have preferred to have seen them in exactly the same position as every other religious body in the community. They have a right to that position; but, in order to meet the curious mind of some of our people, the spiritualists themselves are prepared to undergo an examination and to have certificates in order to prove that those engaged in their particular worship are genuine, and have also the approval of the Home Secretary.
Not only is there the difficulty in that direction, but we find that there is hardship in the courts. The courts refuse to recognise them as a body which may hold property, and have once or twice decided against them in the matter of bequests which have been made to them. Not only the courts, but the Charity Commissioners have refused to recognise them as a charitable body. In fact, at this moment they are in the uncertain position of not knowing whether the property which they are holding is quite safe against any information which might be laid as to their being a. body which is illegal. A body with 600 churches in this position is surely a position which we ought not to allow to continue. Even at the moment that is awful to everyone of us, when we lose one of our pals or friends by death, the right of interment with their own service is refused, because of the state of the law. I am asking that this Bill should be passed into law, so that these genuine spiritualists may not only profess but may worship according to what their conscience has dictated to them, and in the hope that, having been given that freedom, they may have the opportunity of developing in the same way that every other religious body in the country now has. I ask, and I am sure that I ask not in vain in this House, for that freedom for these people, so that they may have an opportunity of developing their faith.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have listened with great interest to the eloquent plea that has been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Some of his arguments seemed to me to be rather in favour of a continuance of the law as it at present stands. He suggested, for instance, that if the law stands as at present, many

1323
Members of this House might get a year's imprisonment and be put in the stocks. That seemd to me a substantial argument for continuing the law as it is. He also said that the people in these spiritualist bodies who own property were very anxious about the security of that property. In that position they are simply sharing the anxiety of everybody who owns anything at all since the advent of the present Government. We are all anxious with regard to our liberty or property about being able to carry on at all if the present Government continue much longer as they are doing.
The principal objection I have to the Bill is that, as I understand, all spiritualists are to be reduced to the state of the canine species. They are to get a licence each year from somebody. I do not know whether their names and addresses are to be attached to their collars, so that if they wander they may be brought back to their spiritual home. My hon. Friend might, I think, have had the courage of his opinions, and asked for the abolition of all the laws against witchcraft, which are completely out of date. He suggests that there is to be an association to issue licences. I suppose that means the appointment of further officials and fresh taxation. While there is to be this preposterous licence, the Bill is quite out of the question, and I would suggest that, buoyed up as he should be by his enthusiasm in the cause, he should have the courage to abolish the whole of these antediluvian laws. He would then have had my support, but, as it is, I think that this is a mere abuse of legislation, and I formally oppose the Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kelly, Mr. Oliver Baldwin, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Charleton, Mr. Herbert Gibson, Captain W. G. Hall, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Knight, Mr. Lang, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. D. G. Somerville, and Miss Wilkinson.

SPIRITUALISM AND PSYCHICAL RESEARCH (EXEMPTION) BILL,
"to relieve spiritualists and 'mediums from prosecution under the enactments relating to witchcraft and vagrancy whilst genuinely exercising their psychic powers whether in religious practice or scientific investigation," presented accordingly, and
1324
read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
East Africa,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa, etc., and to report thereon do meet in Committee Room A on Thursday, 4th December, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
East Africa—Lords Message considered.
Ordered, "That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships."—[Mr. Kennedy.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

DUMPING OF FOREIGN CEREALS.
Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: I beg to move,
"That this House deplores the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs."
In rising to submit the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper in my name, I should like to preface my remarks by expressing the hope that nothing I shall say this afternoon in criticising the respective systems of England and Russia, from which country the principal dumping comes, may be construed, or rather misconstrued, as a reflection upon the Russian people. For the Russian people I have, as I have for all people, the most sincere respect, and for them I have the greatest sympathy in their present difficulties. But my duty to-day is to discuss the particular bearing of dumping of cereals on the English market, and, as the outstanding example is the dumping of Russian cereals, particularly wheat, I have no other recourse than to enter into a somewhat close examination and analysis of Soviet policy and Soviet methods. Before doing so, however, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the present depressed condition of British agriculture. There we find, owing to the fact that agricultural interests are being sacrificed to the popular cry of cheap food, that the arable acreage is rapidly dwindling, and that the land is going back to grass and diminishing the wealth and employment which the countryside should normally derive and afford.
The balancing factor of this situation is, in our opinion, the question of wheat, and, as our Leader has stated, we think that a guaranteed price is needed for English-grown wheat for milling purposes, in order to bring the arable country back under the plough, and so relieve the mixed farming districts of the competition which has resulted. I have always held the opinion that the standard of the well-being of our people is largely dependent upon the relation of production to consumption, upon the relation of supply to demand, and so it seems to me that, in order to preserve an adequate balance between these two economic factors, the home market should be conserved to the
1342
home producer, for it is only in this way that the earning power of our people dependent upon industry can be maintained at its relative level. The facts of the case are briefly as follow: Out of the 71,000,000 cwts. of wheat imported into this country for the nine months ending 30th September, 3,500,000 came from Russia at a price of about 26s. a quarter, which is just about one-half the cost of production of wheat in England at the present time. Since those figures were obtained, I have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade has stated, in reply to a question, that for the three months ending 31st October last, the consignments of wheat from the Soviet Union amounted to 5,825,000 cwts. of an average declared value of 6s. 9d. per cwt., which indicates the increased quantities of wheat thrown upon the market by the Soviet Government, which has the complete monopoly of its foreign trade both in imports and in exports.
Hon. Members have, probably, every right to challenge my definition of dumping, which, as a matter of fact, is a pretty well-understood term to-day, so I took the opportunity of looking up the definition in the dictionary last night. I find that Murray's English Dictionary, Volume III, states that dumping is
"the action of the word 'dump'; bringing down in a heavy mass deposits of rubbish, etc.; a heap of material flung down or deposited."
To that I might perchance add my own particular definition of the words, which perhaps has no bearing on the matter, that to my mind dumping is the selling of some article at a value below its economic cost. This brings me to a consideration of the conditions prevailing in Russia at the present time, which have led to this unprecedented state of affairs. Following the political and social revolution there came, as we all know, a period of economic and industrial stagnation—the usual stagnation which follows in the wake of all revolutions—which, of course, brought great hardship to the people concerned. Then in 1928 came the adoption of the five years plan, which appears to be a gigantic scheme for resuscitating Russian production and re-establishing her economic position on the basis of dragooned labour. This, as applied to agriculture, has produced a policy which divides the agricultural community into

1343
four general groups, the collective farms, the uncollectivised peasants, the State farms and the kulaki or well-to-do peasant group.
It has been shown by experiments that the farms in small units, what we would call smallholdings, produce relatively less for the market than the farms in large units. In consequence it is proposed largely to increase the State farms at an early date. These State farms are largely mechanised farms, run by gangs of workmen who are moved from place to place as necessity demands, and they are productive of large quantities of grain at a minimum operative cost. But even so it would appear from the reports that we receive from time to time that their finance is in a precarious condition, and that in order to obtain the necessary capital to finance the five years plan the Russians are concentrating upon their export trade, particularly in agriculture, oil, timber and other raw materials, at sacrificed prices. There may, of course, be a twofold reason for this policy, for it has been stated that the five years plan, with its rapid industrialisation and complete collectivism of agriculture, and the elimination of all capitalist elements in the country, has been adopted to obtain the ultimate ideal of Communism in Russia, and that the sacrifice of price at which the grain is being offered may be for the purpose of demoralising prices throughout the world and so creating disorder and discontent, through which the Russians hope to bring about the world revolution.
I have only one more word to say in regard to the State farms, and that is as to their production or estimated production in the future. In 1929 there were 1,000,000 acres under cultivation on the State farms. In the present year, 1930–31, it is estimated that there are no fewer than 2,500,000 acres included in the State farms, and by the end of the five years plan in 1934 it is believed that there will be the huge acreage of 75,000,000 acres under State control. That is twice the acreage of the whole of the United Kingdom and the North of Ireland. These farms, as far as we can learn from the reports which we received—this is a point that I hope hon. Members will take into account—are being developed by cajoled, coerced and conscripted
1344
labour, on what is merely a subsistence allowance and under what can be described as a tyrannical and despotic administration. According to Professor Hincklers their weekly wage, on the basis of the purchasing power of the rouble, which is estimated at between two and a-half and seven pence, worked out at the higher figure is only 11s. a week. Certain it is that Russian labour, as M. Poincaré has said, amounts to something like slavery.
If the British Government have any consideration for the standard of life of the British workman, including the agricultural labourer, they must take steps to ensure the home market for the produce of his hands. As we all know, cheapness is not everything. In fact it is nothing without the money or the credit to pay for what we need. Various ways present themselves for dealing with this problem. The licensing system has been adopted by France. America has placed what is in the nature of an embargo against the dumping of Russian cereals and Russian produce in her market. It has been suggested that a scientifically imposed tariff might help to conserve the home markets against the menace of foreign dumping, from whatever country it comes, and perhaps as an alternative it might be suggested to the Governments of the world that they should accept dumped Russian grain and hold it against the payment of Russia's pre-War debts. However, I feel that these details can be very well left to the Government of the day, for has not the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party proclaimed that our system cannot uphold the monster of dumping, and has not the Prime Minister himself declared that farming must be made to pay? Moreover has not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that as soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known the Government will undertake whatever practical steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economic foundation? If this is not done and done in the very near future, I feel sure that the Government, like humpty-dumpty, will have to look forward to a very great fall, brought about by the electorate demanding an ail-British policy for an all-British people.
Mr. BUTLER: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving me this opportunity. We are touching upon a subject which for importance to the British nation out-rivals almost any subject that we have discussed for a very long time. When I return at the week-end to the arable district which I represent and have to tell the people that the British Government is content to let this dumping of Russian produce continue, is content to let the workers and the farmers in the arable districts be ruined by it, and is content at the same time to tell these arable workers that the Government will subsidise grand opera, I can only say that I speak with a feeling of disgust. I visited my district one day recently and a working man came to me and said, "Is it true, Sir, that what this Government is going to do for us is to subsidise grand opera, a thing I have never seen Are they to subsidise Muscovite musicians to come and play and sing in grand opera which I will never see? Is some prima donna, trained on caviare d'Astrakan, to delight the arable workers and farmers in the depressed country districts from which so many of us come?" Is that to be the answer that we have to take? Is that to be the treatment by the Government of this country, which should exhibit power and domination in face of such competition? Is that to be the answer that we have to take into the most depressed and ruined parts of the country?
Mr. PERRY: The Mover of the Resolution gave us a definition from the dictionary of the word "dumping." Would the Seconder of the Resolution give us a definition of the word "foreign"? So far we have heard of nothing but Russia. A few months ago it was Germany and France.
Mr. BUTLER: I am referring to the dumping of foreign cereals in this country, as the experts in the corn trade tell us it is going on now. The chief dumper of cereals on this market is the Russian Government. In the past there have been cases of the dumping of German subsidised wheat, and the dumping of French wheat and flour, but we on this side content ourselves by restricting ourselves to the facts, and the facts at the
1346
moment are that it is the Russian Government which is dumping upon this country at the present time. I do not intend to be led away by any form of quibbling as to the definition of the word "dumping." I am quite willing to accept the definition of my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not propose to go into the realm of political economy to prove anything in that respect. The facts before us are so extremely serious that we shall not tolerate any begging of the question; nor do we intend to accept any form of quibbling upon the question that the Russian exports are now showing a slight diminution, as was reported in the papers yesterday from Constanza. It is because of this dumping that the price of cereals has been so seriously reduced during the last few months. We do not intend to accept any quibbling on the question whether this Russian grain does or does not harm the British farmer. I am convinced that such an argument will be brought up in the course of the debate, but it is not a subject on which we need waste our time. I notice that a speaker said at the Friends, House, at Euston, 14th October, that it was a reason why we should have no fear.
Since 7th August the amount of dumped Russian produce, in the shape of wheat, has increased front 49,000 quarters to nearly 944,000 quarters, an increase of nearly 900,000 quarters. The price of Liverpool options on December futures far 7th August was 35s. 6d. a quarter, or approximately 7s. 4½d. a cental. The price to-day is in the neighbourhood of 25s. One can see that there has been a remarkable rise in the amount of the Russian imports with, at the same time, a steadily falling price, taking the basis of Liverpool options on December futures. I wish to work out these figures a little more closely in order to show how the fall in price has tallied with the incidence of Russian dumping. On 21st August, two weeks after the first date which I gave, the amount of dumping had risen to 263,000 quarters per week, and the price has fallen to 34s. 9d. A month later, on 18th September, the amount of corn dumped had risen to 411,000 quarters per week and the price had sunk to 31s. 7d. The two tables go absolutely together—the fall in price and the rise in the quantity of cereals

1347
dumped. On 16th October the amount of cereals dumped had increased to 605,000 quarters, and the price had sunk to 26s. 9d. On 13th November, the date to which I finally referred, the amount had increased to 944,000 quarters and the price had sunk to 25s. 4d. I think those figures are a sufficient answer to any of the points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite upon this question. They show that the incidence of the dumping of Russian wheat has a direct bearing on the reduction of price. There is one point relating to the question of losses. If we consult Mr. George Broomhall's table of corn prices since the year 1800, we find that the present is the worst time since the year 1894. In that year the lowest point was reached in corn figures since those figures were first recorded in the "Corn Trade News." We are to-day in the worst trough of depression in the corn trade which we have known in this country since these matters were first analysed.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Or anywhere else.
Mr. BUTLER: I am glad that I have the approval of the right hon. Gentleman who, I hope, will bear out the words of wisdom of his chief the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) by supporting this Resolution. We are at this moment in the worst position to be found in the recorded history of the corn trade and of our arable districts, and the subject is one of immense importance to this House. Upon the table to which I have just referred there are certain indications of the reasons why corn was so low in 1894. Those reasons were, first, a financial crisis; second, a superabundance of supplies; third, Argentine exports; and, fourth, the subject which we are considering now, namely, large Russian supplies. It is a remarkable coincidence that at the present time the same economic phenomenon is responsible for the trough in which we find ourselves, as that which was responsible for the previous depression and just as, following upon that depression, there was an extraordinary economic phenomenon in the attempt to corner the corn market, by Leiter, so we have before us now an
1348
economic phenomenon of an even more remarkable kind. In the case of Leiter it was a buying corner, but what we are confronted with now is the greatest organised selling corner that the world has ever seen. Therefore, it is a subject which demands the careful and close scrutiny of this House, and it is necessary that we should impress upon the Government, as we are attempting to do by this Resolution, the extreme urgency of the situation. If the Government are to sit upon the Treasury Bench and maintain the complacent attitude which they have so far adopted towards the cereal producing districts of this country, then we ought to attack them with all the power at our command and force them to take action with the help of our hon. Friends on this side below the Gangway to deal with this vital matter.
I have, I think, proved that the incidence of Russian competition and the reduction in the price of cereals in this country go together, and that now, as in 1894, a great economic phenomenon has to be faced. I wish to give one further fact to stress the extent of the losses involved. It is sometimes said that before the War Russia was a great importer, and that this phenomenon is only getting back to what Russia did before the War. I have analysed the figures of the Russian imports of wheat for 1903 and 1913. The average weekly figure in 1903 was 300,000 quarters. The figures for 1913 show that in the 27th week of the corn importing season there were in this country 8,000,000 quarters of Russian wheat already imported, which works out at between 300,000 and 400,000 quarters of Russian imports in each week of the "trooping season" in the corn trade—if I may use that expression—in 1913, On 13th November of this year we had 945,000 quarters of Russian wheat shipped to this country. That shows that the argument that. Russia is simply getting back to the pre-War position in this matter does not hold water. I will not detain the House by going into the figures in regard to barley, but they are equally dramatic. Barley prices have been affected not only by Russian shipments, but by shipments from Braila and other Danubian ports. The Danubian imports came in May and the Russian imports in August, and I could give

1349
another table equivalent to that which I have already given, to show the effect upon the price of barley. The price of English barley came down 6s. in this country since January, and the, price of Canadian barley came down 12s. 9d. Since January, the fall being largely due to the competition from Russia and from the Danubian ports.
Having given these facts and figures I would like to use some rather more dramatic illustrations to show the seriousness of the position. The first is one which I am sure would appeal to the Prime Minister if he were present, and incidentally it enables me to reply to the question which has been brought up as to what is foreign dumping. It was reported on 3rd November that the good ship "Orion" had arrived at Lossiemouth, the Prime Minister's own port, with 600 tons of Danish barley for the Speyside distilleries. If I had the honour of being the Prime Minister of this country I imagine that, looking out upon the waters, I should have a certain sense of distress in seeing quantities of barley landed in our ports—not only for a purpose which would offend his tendencies towards prohibition, namely, that of making whisky, but also for the purpose of ruining the arable farmers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who brought it in?"] Another graphic illustration is to be found in the fact that it was reported from Elgin on 5th November that the Aberdeen, Banffshire and Kincardineshire farmers had decided to take drastic measures to stop the dumping of foreign oats. This action by farmers introduces another question on which I have not yet touched, namely, the possibility of disease being brought in by dumped oats which are made into flour afterwards sold as Scottish flour. These oats may contain the germ of anthrax. A circular issued by this branch of the Farmers' Union has had 22 replies out of 47 in which farmers and merchants say that they are not going to handle the stuff. That is another dramatic illustration of the effects of dumping at the present time.
The third illustration is one which enables me to conjure up the history, of this country. In the "Corn Trade News" of yesterday I find that no fewer than seven steamers are awaiting orders
1350
at Falmouth, each of which carries approximately 35,000 quarters of Russian corn. It is a dramatic thought that from the ports of Nicolaief, Novorossisk and Odessa there are at the present moment good ships setting forth, many of them I regret to say British ships, bringing to this country the Russian corn which is doing us so much harm. What is the attitude of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they see this new Armada coming to our shores? It is not an Armada such as we had in earlier days of our history when we went out to singe the King of Spain's beard. It is an Armada which is coming here to ruin our farmers. Do the Government take the attitude of those who in past days played bowls and then went out and defeated the Armada? No, I would suggest that their attitude is rather one of playing skittles with all those institutions and all those economic organs which have made this country what it is. But I ask them to think of that Armada waiting for its orders from a foreign Power, domiciled in our capital, as to which port in this country they are to land their cargoes at, to do harm to our farmers and workers. I call upon the Government to regard this as a matter of urgency and to take immediate steps to deal with it.
Finally, I wish to deal with the supreme impotence of the present Government, their stark staring sterility in face of this very serious situation. I maintain that they ought to have dealt in a much more up-to-date and realistic way with the position of this country as regards anti-dumping legislation. They may try to get away with it on the ground that international action is required, but I propose to quote an economist—which I have not yet done—namely Professor Jacob Viner who wrote a Memorandum on dumping for the League of Nations in 1926. He said:
"Such precedents as there are for international action with respect to dumping do not appreciably strengthen the belief in the feasibility of developing methods of the control of the dumping problem other than by independent municipal legislation."
Those are the words of probably the greatest authority on the economics of dumping. He tells us that we must take national action to put an end to this economic phenomenon. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Govern-

1351
ment tells us that this is a matter which must be dealt with by international action—possibly with the same failure as attended the tariff truce—he cannot get away with it, on that ground. We urge him to tell the House that he proposes to take municipal, that is national action, such as we propose in the party to which I belong, to deal with this subject at the earliest possible moment. If we compare our methods with those of the Dominions, we shall see that the Dominions adopted measures to deal with dumping before the War, as early as 1905, by legislation, and in Australia, Canada, and South Africa measures have been taken since the War to deal with this problem. We are almost the only country to-day which is content to say that it does not regard the flooding of its market with foreign goods as dumping unless those goods are sold abroad at under the cost of production. That is the weakest definition of dumping which has been given by any nation, and I do not think it is one to which we as a nation should adhere. Dumping is one of the cruellest of economic weapons. I should like to quote the opinion of Czechoslovakia as to social dumping. The phrase used in Czechoslovakia is:
"If a foreign industry is bringing undue competition to bear on home production owing to the introduction of longer hours of labour or other less favourable social conditions of labour."
In those cases they have certain provisions to deal with dumping in an immediate way, as the French Government have done, by licence. We ask for a reply from the Government on this matter, and we ask for a reply which shall be in accordance with the historical traditions for which this nation is famous, and not in accordance with some of those economic traditions for which the present Government are famous. The chief economic tradition for which this Government are famous is that they are willing to allow our own workers and farmers to be ruined in order to let a great country adopt an entirely new and unlawful method against this country simply because it happens to object to our social and economic system.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that there are not more Members present, but I have listened with interest to the attractive speeches of the Mover and Seconder of
1352
this Motion. I am sorry to disappoint those hon. Members above the Gangway who looked for some help in this matter from these benches. First of all, let me say a word or two about the question of Russia. I remember very well a King's Speech being read in this House from your Chair, Sir, in 1920, and that King's Speech was one of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of this party, who is here this afternoon, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party were the actual framers. They took, I thought at the time, and I still think, a most sensible view with regard to Russia. I quote the words:
"In order, however, to assure the full blessings of peace and prosperity to Europe, it is essential that not only peace but normal conditions of economic life should be restored in Eastern Europe and in Russia. So long as these vast regions withhold their full contribution to the stock of commodities available for general consumption, the cost of living can hardly be reduced nor general prosperity restored to the world."
Do any hon. Members think that by some occult method associated directly with tariffs they are going to produce a condition in Russia which w ill restore her to that position which everybody admits is vital to the development of the economic life of the world? Further, if we, a great trading nation, a nation of shopkeepers, as Napoleon described us, are to choose and to select from among our customers those nations to whose economic life we can give an unmitigated blessing, our trading opportunities will be very few indeed. Everybody knows that after the French Revolution, when excesses internally were equal to and even exceeded those in Russia, this country traded with France at every possible opportunity, and there was scarcely an hon. Member of this House in those days who raised a protest against it. However, I will leave that point, because I do not think it is seriously pressed to-day, although it finds a place in the more purple passages of speeches with regard to Russia.
With regard to the question of wheat, there is no Member on this Bench who does not most heartily subscribe to the view that the arable farmer is indeed very hard hit. Everybody admits that. While other parts of trade and industry are struggling through great difficulties, they are by far the worst hit of all, and I say at once that if it were possible

1353
for any of us to suggest a remedy which would really help them and the whole community at the same time, we should most gladly seize and develop it and do all that we could to assist them, but our difficulty is that we distrust profoundly the remedies suggested, and we look to other means, which it is not open to me now to discuss, for developing the assistance which that branch of industry so urgently needs. I must make this point, however, that wheat is only 4 per cent. of our agricultural products, and last year the value of the product of wheat in this country was £10,000,000, but the value of the product of poultry farming was £20,000,000. I just mention those figures to get them in the right perspective when we are looking at the troubles with which the arable farmer is confronted to-day. Whatever our sympathies may be—and they are deep and sincere—we have to look at the welfare of the community as a whole.
I was very interested in the speeches which have been delivered, but I quite failed to follow most of the statistics that were given to us. I do not know whether it was the mover or the seconder of the Motion who said that the greatest dumper of cereals into this country was Russia. I take the very months which he quoted, and if he does me the honour of listening to me, he will see what the actual facts are. At the end of the month of October we had received into this country, in response to orders that were sent to Russia for it—[An HON. MEMBER: "By whom?"]—by grain traders—6,700,000 quarters, and the Argentine "dumped"—I will use that word—here 13,651,000 quarters. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what price?"] I will give the price in a moment, and I am not at all afraid of that comparison. The United States "dumped" here 18,000,000 quarters, Australia 10,000,000 quarters, and Canada 21,000,000 quarters. I am leaving out the odd figures.
Which is the greatest dumper? Which is the country that responded most largely to orders which were sent to it? Obviously, it was Canada. I make this assertion, and I think I am right when I say it in regard to Canada, that the wheat which is sent here from Canada to-day is delivered here, "dumped," below the cost of production. The real
1354
trouble, of course, is—though I do not know why it should be reckoned as a trouble that so much food should be in the world at so cheap a price—that owing to the bounty of Providence and the development of machinery, there has been and is now a surplus amount of wheat in the world such as there has never been before, and it follows that consumers of wheat in this country are getting it at a lower price almost than ever before. I think it was the Mover of the Motion who quoted the price of 6s. 9d. per cwt. from Russia, and I would like to compare that price with some others. In the week ended 12th November American hard winter wheat was delivered here at 6s. 10d. per cwt., and Manitoba No. 2 was delivered in London at 6s. 10d. I am quoting from the official list of comparative prices, which I have obtained from official sources. Surely the point goes, on the question of price. Russia is delivering her wheat to-day, in view of its rather inferior quality, at the average market price of the day.
Let me take this extraordinary objection to trading with Russia. I have often heard the point taken, though not perhaps to-day, that £2,500,000 of good British money has been lent to Russia. What are the facts in regard to that matter? There was established under the leadership of my right hon. Friend, in 1920, an Export Credits Committee, which was staffed by first-class business men in the City of London, who thoroughly understood their job. I do not know whether there have been one or two changes since this Government came into office, but it is now in all respects substantially the same Committee. What have they been doing? They have been giving credits to British exporters, to send to Russia, in response to orders from Russia, such goods as this country can supply and as the Russian customer wants.
That credit amounts to about £2,500,000, and I noticed that within the last week or two a very large order, amounting to £600,000, had been placed for British machine tools—[interruption.] I do not know precisely how they are paid for, but I should hope that there is nobody in this House who would not agree that there is only one way of paying for goods or services which go out from this country, and that that is by goods or services which

1355
come into this country. There is no other way of doing it. Russia cannot send us back manufactured goods. What has she sent back to us? The things which she has and which we want. She has been sending back to us timber. She is going to pay for the £600,000 worth of orders for British-made goods by wheat, by timber, by oil, by tallow, and by other products. [interruption.] I want to be paid for the goods I send, and I will take whatever Russia sends.
5.0 p.m.
I will deal, in conclusion, with the question of dumping again. I was amazed at the statement which was made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion. He had been spending hours in the Library finding out from a dictionary what was the meaning of the word "dumping," and he had come to the conclusion that dumping meant to dump, that is to say, planked down here in large masses. These goods come into the country because somebody here wants them, and that is the only way in which this operation can be dealt with. There was another interesting speaker, going back to the year 1921, when there was a debate which, in point of interest and clarity of statement, has not often been exceeded in the history of this House. I need not say that in clarity of statement of difficult questions, one of the greatest masters was our right hon. Friend the late Lord Oxford. In the course of that debate, he was pressed to say what he mean by dumping, and I will quote fully what he said, for the actual English of it is quite worth listening to:
"Dumping! What is dumping? …. What does it mean in any intelligent sense? It means the deliberate and organised attempt of foreign producers, or, as is much more common, a combination of foreign producers, flourishing as they do under the facilities of rings and trusts which protective tariffs always afford, to flood our markets, regardless of price, with goods which will undermine and, as they hope, destroy some particular branch of British industry. I am an old hand in these matters, and I have argued this question of dumping before many hon. Members now present were here, and I have always said that Free Trade is not a gospel of fiscal quietism or quakerism. There is nothing in the Free Trade creed or practice which obliges any Free Trader to submit to a process of that kind. Even when it is proved, and it must be proved, first of all, then the next thing to do is to make yourself quite certain that the
1356
methods you are going to take to counteract it are not likely to do more injury than would be the case if you allowed it to exist. These are the two conditions upon which Free Traders are quite prepared to deal with dumping."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1921; col. 1727, Vol. 141.]
That, though in a slightly more classic form, is what my right hon. Friend said the other day. That is the Liberal case with regard to dumping. Since that day until this, no case has been proved. That is our case, and the remedy of hon. Members above the Gangway is to put up tariffs. You cannot stop dumping by tariffs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Prohibition!"] Prove your case, and I will be prepared to prohibit, but let us have your case. Whether my statement is agreed with or disagreed with, I have, at any rate, made it clear.
Mr. PERRY: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite who gave way when I asked a question. There was no intention on my part to quibble on this question of dumping, but I was disappointed that the two hon. Members who put forward this Motion, dealt with dumping from foreign countries as applied to one country only, namely, Russia.
Mr. BUTLER: Other countries were mentioned as well.
Mr. PERRY: Not up to the time of my interruption. I do not want to deal with this question merely from the point of view of imports from a particular country. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite who will speak later to explain exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion meant when he quoted a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), and spoke about the Conservative party's policy of a guaranteed price for wheat. I have heard that policy mentioned many times, and I have waited to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us exactly how that guaranteed price is to be obtained, and where it is to come from. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley mentioned in a speech yesterday a watertight quota system, and we were given to understand that the Conservative party have now drawn up a complete system under which a quota of British wheat will be taken by British mills. I am not attempting to challenge that, but I would like hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us, when they speak of

1357
Socialism as a policy of dressing us all alike and keeping in step, what will be the policy of a Tory Government which will tell the people of this country exactly what kind of bread they are to eat?
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Empire bread.
Mr. PERRY: You may apply that doctrine if you like, but the co-operative movement will never be behind in supporting a Government in development in that direction. I want to deal with the point in regard to co-operative societies and wheat from Russia. No trading organisation in this country is more loyal to the development of Empire trade than the co-operative movement. From 1924 to 1929 this movement financed the West Australian Wheat Pool to the extent of over £14,500,000. It financed the South Australian Wheat Pool to the extent of over £3,250,000. It, has advanced to the Australian Warehousing Association over £324,000 already, and in 1929 it purchased produce to the amount of over £10,250,000 from the New Zealand Produce Association. I can, therefore, claim with some evidence that the co-operative movement is playing its part in developing trade within the Empire, and doing also what it can to help home agriculture.
It is difficult to get a copy of the weekly notes for speakers issued by the Conservative party, and I am very grateful to them for letting me have a copy. In the issue of 6th September, they make an attack on the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which has been re-echoed from Conservative platforms in the country, and has been referred to in this House, with regard to the co-operative movement and the purchase of Russian wheat. What is the complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite Do they claim that when Russian wheat or Canadian wheat or Argentine wheat comes to this country in large quantities, the co-operative movement is to stand aside and not take fair advantage of the market, but allow those who support private enterprise to have the advantage over the co-operative movement? During the period that has been referred to, the purchases of the co-operative movement were to the extent of only 14 per cent. of the importation. Is the complaint that by taking 14 per cent. of that importation of Russian wheat, the movement allocated
1358
only 86 per cent. to upholders of private enterprise, and took some portion of their profit? One result of that policy has been that the co-operative movement led the way in a further reduction in the price of bread, and it has been followed only in the last few days by private enterprise.
This question of the fall in commodity prices, particularly in regard to wheat, has not arisen simply within the last few weeks. It is not fair to British agriculture to say that only 4 per cent. of the agricultural produce of this country is wheat. It is true in a sense, but the figures are not quoted in a way that is fair to British agriculture. The production of wheat in this country has been reduced so low as 4 per cent. through the continued agricultural depression of the last few years, and, when we talk of the production of wheat being only 4 per cent. of our agricultural produce, this fact should be borne in mind. In 1929, I was in touch with a group of Northamptonshire farmers who were complaining of the dumping of foreign cereals. Russia was not mentioned at that time. At one time it was Germany, and another time France, but every hon. Member opposite knows that during the last two or three years Canadian wheat has done more to depress the price in this country than the wheat of any other country. Being connected with one of the largest wheat importing organisations in this country, I want to say this. When our buyer goes to interview the representative of the Canadian Wheat Pool, he does not talk about the British Empire; he talks about wheat. It is only because of the abnormal conditions now prevailing, and the fact that Canada has a surplus of practically two full season's crops, that the price has been so considerably reduced.
We in the co-operative movement stand for cheap food for the consumer. I am not ashamed to declare that, but we have never claimed that that cheap food should be obtained at the expense of the producer. I want my agricultural friends to help me in this. When the average world price of wheat was 42s., I was in touch with agricultural interests in Northamptonshire, who said that their cost of production was 56s. a quarter. I think that may have been on the high side, but let us take it at 52s. I put this simple question to my hon. Friend

1359
opposite, using the figures for purposes of illustration only: If the world price of wheat is 42s. per quarter and the cost of production of wheat in this country is 52s. per quarter, when my hon. Friends talk about a guaranteed price for homegrown wheat who is going to find the difference of 10s. per quarter? I should be very glad if we could have some light on that matter during this debate. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said in a speech last week. I was brought up in Lancashire, brought up under the Free Trade system. Free Trade was regarded as vital to the cotton industry, and I believe it is the best fiscal system for this country. We should not have come so well through the difficult times through which we have been passing if we had been hidebound by a tariff system.
But that does not mean that I come here to-night defending the dumping, if you may call it so, of the produce or goods of a foreign country where they are made under conditions which I have opposed to the utmost of my strength in this country. I hope my hon. Friend opposite will not charge me and others on this side with quibbling, but I say that we ought not to have had that dramatic illustration about the armada at Falmouth. The hon. Member must remember when he talks about those British ships that it was British labour that built them, and it may be that it is British labour that is manning them, and if those ships were not employed there might be more unemployment. Anxious as we are to deal with this evil, we say that at this stage it is idle to take the step suggested by this Motion.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I shall do whet I can to answer one or two of the questions which have been addressed to this side of the House by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Perry). He asked, first, how it was intended to bridge the gap between the world price for wheat and the guaranteed price for home-grown wheat. When the Conservative party is again in office one of the first things it is going to do is to put an emergency tariff on manufactured goods coming into this country. That will be a considerable new source of revenue, and from that money it will
1360
be possible to find the sum required to bridge the gap. I was very much surprised, in fact, rather alarmed, to note the great anxiety with which the hon. Member for Kettering defended the position of the co-operative societies.
Mr. PERRY: No anxiety.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I thought a considerable note of anxiety ran through the whole of the hon. Member's speech. So anxious was he to defend the position of the co-operative societies that he neglected altogether the terms of the Motion. Am I wrong in making the statement that the Co-operative Society is in some respects a joint enterprise with the Russo-British Grain Import Company, Limited?
Mr. PERRY: Yes, undoubtedly it is, and has been for many years, in common with one of the largest banks in this country and one of the largest shipping companies.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I think the admission of the hon. Member is very interesting in view of his speech, and we know now why he was at such pains to explain and exonerate the position of the co-operative societies. Turning to the Motion itself, we have heard a good deal from the right hon. Gentleman on the benches below the Gangway about the definition of dumping. In discussing dumping we must be quite clear that there are many different kinds of dumping. I submit that commodities would fall under the definition of dumping if they are exported from any country where they are produced under any of the following conditions: (1) Under conditions of standard-of-living or of level-of-wages which are far below those obtaining in the country of importation; (2) where the commodities are produced under conditions of slave or of forced labour; (3) where the exporting country protects its home production by tariffs and then exports the surplus at prices lower than those obtaining in its own home market; (4) where the exporting company subsidises its exports by export bounties or any similar form of subsidy; (5) political dumping, a new form of dumping and the most dangerous dumping of all. I am not going to elaborate this last aspect of dumping, because I think it has been carefully and fully explained both by the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion,

1361
but it is a form of dumping and by far the most dangerous of all. When commodities come from any of these countries where the conditions I have just described prevail into a country where similar commodities are produced, then, I say, they are dumped commodities.
The hon. Member for Kettering complained that Russia had been the only country mentioned in connection with dumping. We all know perfectly well that it is not the only country which would come within the definition I have just given to the House. Barley comes from North Africa and from Asia Minor which has been grown under conditions which would not be tolerated in this country. In fact, a great deal of the malting barley which competes so severely with the barley grown in this country is produced under conditions which would not be tolerated here. We have instances of cereals, though perhaps it is truer of potatoes, coming from Algeria which are undoubtedly grown under conditions of convict labour. If we come to instances of countries exporting their surplus, though protecting themselves against imports from other countries, we find Germany doing that, and we find France damaging our wheat growers and our millers very severely by exports of flour under expert bounties. We get several instances of that and if the hon. Member for Kettering will read the terms of the Motion he will see that it is by no means confined to Russia; in fact, I do not think Russia is mentioned in the Motion.
Almost every civilised country in the world is taking steps to prevent dumping from other countries. I have here a reply given by the Secretary of the Department for Overseas Trade in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler). He said:
"By a decree issued on 3rd October the importation into France of cereals (and certain other goods) originating in or coming from the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics is made dependent on the grant of a licence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1930; col. 921, Vol. 245.]
That shows that France is taking steps to protect herself. On the same day the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) gave a list of countries which have now put the quota system, or something akin to it, into practice. It may surprise the House
1362
to hear the number of countries which have now adopted some system of that sort. They are Germany, Portugal and Latvia, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. They are all taking steps to protect themselves against dumping, and a large number of them are using the quota because they find it to be the most satisfactory automatic anti-dumping machine available.
As all these countries have taken steps to prevent dumping it makes the situation infinitely worse far us. Were the dumped products of Russia or any other country being distributed in comparatively small parcels over all the countries of Europe the damage done would probably not be so great, but when nearly all the countries have taken steps to prevent dumping the whole of the dumped cereals come here, the only country foolish enough to protect its labour while not protecting the products of its labour. From a purely business point of view it may be attractive, as it is to the Cooperative Wholesale Society, to buy this dumped stuff, but let there be no misunderstanding about this: a continued course of dumping such as that from which we are now suffering definitely means ruin to our agriculture.
Sometimes it is argued that the effect of dumping on prices is very small. The House will probably remember the effect of the dumping of German wheat. I will not even call it dumping if that word is offensive to hon. Members opposite. I refer to the German what which arrived in this country in harvest time in 1928 and 1929. Cargoes of German wheat were landed at East Anglian ports at the beginning of September, just when the Eastern Counties farmers were getting in their wheat crop and beginning to thresh it and offer it on the market. What happened? The first cargo was offered at just a little less than the then ruling price of English wheat in East Anglian markets. Next week, of course, English wheat had to come down, and come down it did. The following week the German wheat was offered at about 2s. a quarter less than the price of the English wheat the week before; and so the thing went on. Just when the English farmer, who had been waiting nearly 12 months to get a return on his crop was

1363
ready to market his wheat he found himself confronted by these importations of German wheat, which depressed prices week by week.
Many official excuses have been given in the House. It has been said that the quantity imported is almost negligible as compared with the total importation of wheat, and that is perfectly true. There was not a very large importation of German wheat, but it had an enormous effect on prices. Another official answer given so often with great satisfaction is "After all, the import this year is less than it was last year." Of course, that means nothing at all. Anyone who has been in business knows well that when the supply approximates to the demand there is reasonable stability of prices. When a small deficiency arises, then you get a rise in price out of all proportion to the actual deficiency in the supply. Any business man will tell you that when supply rises above the balancing or saturation point then there is a fall in price out of all proportion to the rise in supply. Why dumping is so serious in this country is because our supplies of agricultural products, and certainly cereals, are nearly always at saturation point. It stands to reason that the dumping of cereals must have a. greater effect in this country than in any other country. Another reason is that we are the most popular market, and foreigners always like to sell their goods here because they know that we are honest people, and that they will get paid for their goods. In this country we have a very high standard of commercial integrity, and that is why so many unsold cargoes, which otherwise might have gone to some other country, are directed to this country.
The question we have to settle here and now is, are we going to maintain the traditional Cobdenite theory, as advanced in this debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). I think the right hon. Gentleman must have dug out a speech he made about a quarter of a century ago. The question I ask is: Are we prepared to be content always to buy in the cheapest market and comfort ourselves with the idea of selling in the dearest market?
1364
It is not a question now of selling in the dearest market, because if foreign countries continue to dump their goods here, we shall have no market at all, and that is the position we are in to-day. Why did Cobden always insist upon cheap food? Free Traders advanced only one reason for that, and it was that it would give this country cheap labour. It is amazing to me that the Socialist party, which calls itself the Labour party, should subscribe to the theory of cheap food, because the only principle upon which it rests is that it is the necessary corollary of cheap labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members will turn up the speeches which were made in Cobden's time, they will find that their one principal cry was for cheap food. It is clear that there is no reason why we should not be able to secure a far higher standard of living in this country even if food did cost a little more. We have only to look to the United States for an example, because there you will find not only that the cost of living is higher, but that the standard of living and the standard of wages are infinitely higher than in this country.
Mr. HAYDOCK: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman see the "Daily Express" last Monday, in which there was a photograph showing people who were offering to work for one week for one dollar?
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I did not have an opportunity of seeing the "Daily Express" on that day, but what the hon. Member has quoted would not affect my argument in the least. It is undeniable that in the United States there is a higher standard of living and higher wages, although food cost a little more than it does in this country. That is my point. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the present position. The President of the Board of Trade is, we understand, about to ratify the Tariff Truce Convention. Do hon. Members opposite realise all the implications of that Convention, and do they really wish the hands of this country to be tied so that when the masses of the working classes of this country produce goods or foods they will find the market gone for the products of their labour, with the result that they will be condemned to remain unemployed? That is the necessary consequence of the action taken by

1365
the President of the Board of Trade, and, in these circumstances, I ask, should the right hon. Gentleman be permitted to go to Geneva to ratify the Tariff Truce Convention?
I will consider for a few moments the views of political parties on this question. The Conservative party have declared their policy in unequivocal terms. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Paddington?"] The Conservative party have declared their intention to stop dumping at the very earlist moment, and therefore we know where they stand in relation to dumping. I admit that there is some difficulty when we come to consider the position of the Liberal party. When we were discussing the other day the importation of foreign fruits we had a very important declaration from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvan Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who said that he was going to do all sorts of fine things, and he said, referring to the dumping of fruit:
"I do not consider, as I have said before here, that Free Trade is bound to carry that monster on its back."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1930, cols. 481–2, Vol. 245.]
Seven days and seven nights have passed since then, and this afternoon we are discussing almost the same problem as applied to cereals, and we find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall trying to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not mean what he said last week, and does not know what he means to say this week.
Mr. FRANK OWEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said exactly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said last week, that where dumping was proved to exist, he was prepared to stop it.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether dumping had been proved to exist or not. I would like to know if the Liberal party believe that this country is not suffering from the dumping of cereals. I would like to ask what goods the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall thinks are being dumped in this country. It is perfectly clear that
1366
the Liberal party has changed its view one way or the other since this day last week. On these benches we can well afford to leave the Liberal party out of consideration altogether because the whole Conservative party is united with regard to the policy of dumping, and we intend to put a stop to it at the earliest possible moment. If on this Motion the Members of the Socialist party in this House took part in a secret ballot, I am quite convinced that there would be a majority of the Members who would vote for this Motion. I believe that there is an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of stopping dumping in every form in order to protect British labour.
Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I congratulate the Mover and Seconder upon the fair case which they have put in relation to this Motion, which evidently has been somewhat altered since it was drawn, because while its terms are clear and distinct in referring to all foreign cereals the type of speech to which we have just listened was largely concerned with a sustained tirade upon Russia and Russian trade. Having regard to the reference made by the hon. and gallant Member for Malden (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) at the close of his spirited speech, I should like to make one or two comments in relation to the aspect which I consider is the most dangerous in regard to this Motion. Speaking as a back bench Member, and as a new Member of this House, I am firmly convinced that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are far more interested in the welfare of agriculture in this country as a political asset to their own party than they are in endeavouring to get down to brass tacks in dealing with the welfare of the farmer. I have had four or five years' experience with regard to this question, and I am in a position to judge the results. By their deeds we shall know them.
Coming back to the point of this Motion, and to the challenge put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maldon. I note that three-fourths of this Motion consists of a condemnation, equal to a Vote of Censure, upon the Government, and just at the fag-end the Motion states that

1367
"immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs."
There is nothing from which agriculture has suffered so much in the past as being made the plaything of party politics in this House. While I yield to no one in my loyalty to the principles of the party to which I am associated, I say quite definitely that my instructions from my constituency and my understanding are that I should fight for agricultural interests quite irrespective of party when national welfare and security are involved. The supporters of this Resolution have sandwiched in a Vote of Censure against the Government. It is a mistake for the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon to say that hon. Members on these benches would vote in a secret ballot in favour of condemning the Government on this question. Apart from that position, I think this House might do well to face the fundamental facts connected with this question. I will throw out a challenge to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and it is that if they will withdraw their Vote of Censure upon the Government, and confine the Motion to calling attention to the dumping of foreign cereals, and the necessity for introducing immediate measures to rectify that state of things, I am prepared to go into the Lobby with them. I leave it to hon. Members opposite to dissociate themselves from mere partisan politics, and come down to brass tacks by facing the position.
Let there be no misunderstanding. I have heard several definitions of dumping to-day, and I make no apology for offering another. I suggest that dumping is the policy of placing articles upon the market of another country at a price less than the cost of production in the country of origin. When we get to that stage, I agree with what has been said by Members of the Liberal party that we should take definite action to deal with dumping. The call is made from the opposite benches that we should take steps, as a Parliament and as a nation, to stop the incoming of foreign foodstuffs—because that is what it really means—to feed 45,000,000 people. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite, in face of the present position, think that they are doing a service to the home producer, but they are turning 44,000,000 of the
1368
population into enemies of the home producer by simply asking for a tax on food which they are bound not to accept. I want to deal with the wider aspects of this issue. I say quite definitely that I am prepared to vote against dumping, but I am not prepared to vote for food taxes, and the simple fact is that without food taxes you cannot keep foreign food from coming into this country, nor can you stop that which comes from the rest of the Empire. Our people must be fed, and the logical conclusion is that, this being the finest market in the world, we cannot stop such imports at the expense of the consumer to a sufficient extent to be of real value to the home producer.
I want to say a word now on the question of wheat growing in this country, to which reference has been made. I think that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Liberal benches mentioned that only about 4 per cent. of our acreage in this country was wheat land. Speaking as a grower, I feel that the industry itself is more to be pitied than blamed for this situation. It has been the considered policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever since the War to let this position linger on, so that they can make a little more party capital and a little more division between political parties in this House, when we ought to have been bending our minds to a constructive policy along the lines of cereal production in this country, based upon a just economic price, instead of playing off the foreign and Russian bogey in order to frighten people in the villages and seek to give that appearance which is usually displayed at election times in the Bolshevik pictures to which they attach our names.
As regards the position of wheat, I want here and now respectfully to suggest that the criticism that, because it is only a small proportion of the main production in this country, therefore it is a negligible one, is a misguided criticism, calculated to do very real harm to arable agriculture in this country. I put it to the House in all seriousness that wheat is a far bigger factor than is represented just by the value of the cereal itself. It is of great value, and the nation that forgets the debt that it owes to wheat and to bread may well begin to prepare for its own burial in an economic sense. The value of wheat in

1369
relation to this problem resides in the fact that, old-fashioned though it may appear, the growing of wheat in the crop rotation, as is known to many farmers, cultivators and farm workers in agricultural Britain, is one of the finest regulating forces in relation to other crops. It will very often steady prices and steady production, and will level the growth of sugar beet, potatoes and other crops, where otherwise, if wheat were driven out of cultivation, they would be overweighted, and the result would be a slump in those branches of the industry accordingly.
I have more confidence than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have in our Front Bench in regard to completing their agricultural policy. I can understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends opposite, because we are making this an agricultural Session, and they must not be surprised if, before this Session ends, there are proposals for dealing with cereals along the lines of the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last morning of last Session. Anyhow, I take it that they are beginning to have just a little faith, and that is worth something, because, if one were to judge from their attitude towards Labour's approach to agriculture, one might well be led to think that they were the only friends of agriculture in this country. They have been its biggest enemies, because they have not only failed during the years when they had the finest opportunity that any party ever had, but they have also discredited every other attempt made by every other party. The sooner we can drop this partisan challenge, and get down to that united attempt which some of us made earlier in the last Session to get a national policy, the safer and better it will be for the industry.
The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion made a remark to the effect that we were playing skittles with the whole position. I do not know why he should have said that now, because agriculture has been made a shuttlecock in this House for generations. Some of us are determined to protest against the humbug and cant which has been associated with this business. While we are going down into the very depths of poverty in East Anglia, and our people do not know which way to look, hon. Members
1370
come here with a proposal to stop dumping from Russia. We do not want to deal with the foreign side of the policy so much as to get down to a just economic price for our own home produce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Of course, my hon. Friends cheer. They visualise the taxation of everybody's food. But they know that they cannot get a mandate for that until two elections are over, and what is going to happen in the meantime to our starving industry? I submit that the policy of the present Government, although not yet declared—[Interruption]—is clearly indicated by the lines marked out by the party to which I am proud to belong. I hope that my hon. Friends will have the courage to support the policy of import boards and a stabilised price for home produce on lines that shall be economically just and fair. Some of us believe sincerely that it can be done along national lines, and it can be done in this present Parliament if hon. Gentlemen opposite will pool their brains with a little more sympathy in regard to co-operation and will endeavour to get this through.
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is that the policy?
Mr. TAYLOR: My friends are laughing and making light of my humble reply—
Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if that is the policy of the Government?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): Obviously, the hon. Member is not speaking on behalf of the Government, and I hope he will be allowed to proceed without these interruptions.
Mr. TAYLOR: I thought I indicated sufficiently plainly in my opening remarks that I was speaking as a backbench Member from an agricultural constituency. I am pursuing the line laid down by the Labour party in their party policy with regard to import boards, for which I have voted at five national conferences, and for which I shall vote when they are brought into being. We may not be able to secure this policy, but it will not be for want of trying, but because of opposition on the other side to anything which they do not themselves require for party advantage. I give that

1371
to my hon. Friends for what it is worth. Meanwhile, I want to emphasise the fact that I agree with all that has been said on the other side in regard to the seriousness of the situation in this country.
I believe that this Motion could have been carried if the partisan note of censuring His Majesty's Government had been kept out of it. We are halfway through an agricultural Session, and the Government are undoubtedly bending their minds to a constructive policy, which is not yet completed. [Interruption.] Hon Members may laugh, but a period of 15 months of Labour Government has done a thundering sight more than your poor efforts, and no amount of laughter can obliterate your neglect and your misleading promises. We are entitled to remind hon. Members of that, because their pharisaical tone of superiority will not answer their purpose unless it is accompanied by deeds. Labour is going to deliver these goods along lines that will give the cities a chance to pull through and reconstruct their industry with State assistance. The countryside, too, has reached a stage, under capitalism and private enterprise, when we can no longer look with any degree of security or confidence to those agencies alone. They have their part to play, but Labour believes, not in destroying, but in transforming, with the co-operation of the State, the relationships in the economic life of the nation. Therefore, I venture to think that our friends have done themselves and the industry a real disservice by making this matter one of mere partisan voting in the House this afternoon.
Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I think I am the first Member representing an entirely industrial constituency who has had the temerity to take part in this debate. I do not make any excuse for so doing, because it is quite clear that, if the very serious crisis in which the agricultural districts of this country find themselves to-day is to be remedied, it can only be done by the co-operation and with the consent of those who dwell in the towns. There is an increasing recognition on the part of those who represent industrial constituencies that our social and economic balance in this country has been disturbed, and that we must
1372
make every effort we possibly can to put it right. In my own Division I never cease to be reminded of the difficulties of the countryside. I interview large numbers of unemployed persons, who come to me for advice and to ask for help in one way or another, and I find that there are among them a very large number who started life upon the land. In that way I am constantly reminded of the necessity for co-operation between the cities and the countryside if we are to bring about a solution of this difficulty.
I am not particularly interested in the party pleasantries which are so exhilarating from time to time in this House. I never find that they lead to very much, or promote the business that has to be transacted here, but an hon. and gallant Member speaking from above the Gangway just now suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), in quoting a speech made in this House, I think in 1921, by the late Lord Oxford, was in some way trying to qualify the position of the Liberal party, or to sidetrack—I think that was the word that was used—a declaration in the debate last week by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I wish to say here and now that the quotation of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall was for the purpose of expanding the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the position laid down by Mr. Asquith, and, although I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was in the House at that time, he would have seen, if he had been present, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was then in the House, and accepted the formula of Mr. Asquith with regard to dumping. The position, therefore, for what it is worth, is precisely the same to-day as it was after the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his speech.
6.0 p.m.
I should like to come back to the speech of the Mover, which was in a very large measure devoted to the position of Russia. There has been a good deal of inquiry and discussion as to what is dumping, and other speakers have asked what it is. It would appear to be a sort of oscillating phenomenon. I am aware of

1373
a transaction that took place in October of this year, when a cargo of Canadian wheat was bought in London at 20s. a quarter, which must have represented a total loss to the Canadian producer, and if there is to be a definition of dumping in the discussion of this Motion, that will serve as well as another. But I should like to put the actual position of Russia in its proper perspective in the European and the world market. The crop year ending last year was a particularly good cereal year in Europe, and France produced a crop of wheat of 49,000,000 quarters. There was produced in France more wheat than in Canada. France naturally proceeded to sell her wheat where she could, and she sold some in this country, and it was very uncomfortable for producers in this country. This year the position has changed, and she has only produced 29,000,000 quarters. For the same reason the Italian crop is 5,000,000 quarters less, and the Rumanian crop also is less to the extent of about 2,000,000 quarters. There is a very substantial deficit this year in the European supply of wheat in comparison with last year. The largest estimate I have seen of the possible exports of wheat from Russia in this season is 14,000,000 quarters, which will simply be sold in Europe and will go some way, but not the whole way, to make up the deficit in the crops of France and the other countries I have mentioned.
It is, therefore, quite clear that, while Russia is a factor in the situation in Europe, it is by no means a decisive factor, and the influence of Russia in the markets of the world, when considered in its actual perspective, appears to be even less important. The total estimated import requirements in Europe and in the whole world amount to about 94,000,000 quarters. The estimated surplus for the British Empire, including India, is 69,000,000 quarters and for the other countries, including Russia, 84,000,000 quarters, or a total of 153,000,000 quarters. The position, therefore, is simply this, that at the end of this crop year, just at the time when the European and the Canadian and American crops are again ready to come into the market, there will be 59,000,000 quarters of wheat available, that is, seven months' supply, for all the countries that require to import wheat. To suggest that, by means of a

1374
tariff or an import Board or a quota, or by any other device which the ingenuity of Members can suggest, you can hold up the price of wheat for the English farmer is a ridiculous proposition. It is a task that might well have daunted the courage and tenacity of Sisyphus, and I am inclined to think that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) and his friends, or any other set of men, attempt to raise the price of wheat by any artificial device, they will meet with the same fate that overcame Sisyphus. I was discussing this proposition the other day with an acquaintance who has the unusual qualification of being both a miller and a farmer. I think his opinion is tinged rather by his experience as a farmer than as a miller, and I do not associate myself with it, but he said there was only one way to settle the problem of wheat growing in this country, and that was to make it a penal offence to grow it. There is only one other way that I can see in which it can be done—I do not rise unless I am prepared to make some contribution to the debate—and that is to pay the farmer to grow it, and I am exceedingly doubtful whether that is a method that would commend itself to this country.
I said that the object of these remarks was to show that, while Russia was a factor in the situation this year, she is by no means the important factor that we are led to suppose by the fact that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, concentrated their observations upon Russia and her exports of wheat. The situation of the cereal crop in this country is very anxious, but whereas I say that Russia now is not a very important factor, it is upon Russia that I should be keeping my eye if I were a grower of cereals. The Mover gave us a picture of what is going on in Russia. Since the War the recovery of grain production in Russia has been very slow. Eleven years after the War the production was 10 per cent. below what it was in 1913. As exports had ceased, it would appear that the home grown supply ought to have been just enough to meet home requirements, but it was not so. In 1929 there was a crisis in grain growing in Russia, with the result that they had to import wheat from the Argentine. The crisis arose

1375
for this reason that, owing to the breakup of the great estates and the substitution of some 10,000,000 of smallholders, the amount of wheat produced had fallen off, and, what is more important, the amount produced for market and for exports had practically ceased. That has led to an experiment which, I think, must be described as the most remarkable experiment in agricultural development that the world has ever seen. The Mover referred to the State farms. One-third of the acreage of land which is now put to the plough in Russia is farmed on State farms, or on socialised or mechanised farms. The average acreage is from 30,000 to 60,000 hectares. There are some that are much bigger. There is one that is 200,000 hectares and there are others which perhaps approach that magnitude.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman described the state of the labour employed upon these farms and said it was a state resembling in many respects that of slaves. Without going so far as to contradict him, I would point out that there are perfectly competent observers, speaking with authority of what they have seen, whose records are open and are to be challenged, who give a very different description of the state of life upon these farms. They describe a large farm which has upon it a college with 500 students. They have everything that can be needed to brighten life in the countryside. They have their library. They even have a theatre. They have their car parks and they have parks for the tractors which are doing this work, and it is clear that there is a vast experiment in large-scale mechanised agriculture such as the world has never seen, and which should give grounds for most serious thought by all those who are concerned in the growth of cereals in this country. The immediate significance of these large-scale transactions is that already the production of wheat per acre has risen enormously in comparison with the pre-War level, when it was carried on by the peasantry with primitive ploughs and such means as were available. The production per acre has risen, and the price has accordingly fallen. Wheat is much cheaper now than it was when it was produced under the pre-War régime. If you are
1376
going to enter into calculations of what dumping is, you are going to have a cost of production which will alter the whole basis of your calculations. One must regard this question, though relatively unimportant this year, as a matter which in the future may be of the greatest moment to cereal producers in this country.
I hoped we should have had an indication from the proposer and seconder of the steps which, in their view, should be put into operation in order to remedy the state of affairs. I am in the dark as to what they are, but supposing complete prohibition was suggested. I do not know whether that is one of the means they envisage, but, even if it were, such a process would not help the agricultural producer in this country one little bit. The selling of 14,000,000 quarters of Russian wheat in Europe this year, if that is the right quantity, would have precisely the same effect on prices whether they were sold on the Continent or in this country. Whatever may be the disadvantages of our corn-importing system, it certainly has some very remarkable advantages. Our bread, in spite of the fact that we are told on some authority that there is a greater spread between wholesale and retail prices than in other countries, is far and away cheaper here than in any country where they have the benefit of quotas, tariffs and devices of that kind. That is one advantage which, I hope, the country people will not deny. Another, that wheat habitually sells lower in this country than in the country of origin, brings to this country an enormous transshipment business, which is beneficial to our shipping and to insurance and the like, in cargoes which are sent out from various countries, which are not ordered but are dealt with on the high seas.
These are very real advantages. If, as the result of prohibition, that quantity of Russian wheat were to be sold on the Continent and lowered the price of wheat in the European market below what it is in this country, we should lose those advantages, for what they are worth, with the very serious Imperial consequences that would follow from it. If it was arranged that Australia and Canada should supply us with all the wheat that we require to import, a quantity of the order of 29,000,000 quarters, they would still have to sell 60 per cent.

1377
of their produce on the Continent. It is, therefore, to their interest that prices should be kept as high as possible on the Continent of Europe. I must apologise for taking up the time of the House for so long, but I thought that I should like to bring the attention of the House back to this question of Russia, and also try to put the position of Russia in the world order of the wheat trade in its proper position.
Captain TODD: I had not originally intended to intervene in this debate, but, as a representative of an agricultural Division, I felt that I must rise to protest against the unreality of the debate this afternoon. It appears to me that both hon. and right hon. Members opposite and those below the Gangway completely ignore the appalling condition of the agricultural industry in the country. Those of us who see the trouble realise that something must be done at once. We cannot consider that this debate, in which we have had a certain amount of wrangling about the meaning of the word "dumping," is really going to help us.
Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The debate this afternoon, I think, has wandered somewhat from the actual words of the Motion which was moved by the hon. and gallant Member. I should like, in the first place, to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Captain Todd), that his suggestion that those of us who sit on this side and the hon. Members who sit below the Gangway are indifferent to the position of agriculture is entirely untrue. It does not necessarily mean that because we differ upon the methods which should be adopted in order to effect an improvement there is any less interest in the needs of that great industry. It seems to me that we have muddled two questions before the House. The actual Motion is simply a Vote of Censure upon the Government because they have failed to prevent the dumping of certain cereals into this country. That is the beginning and the end of the Motion which has been placed before us.
Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the condition of the industry in a way that would seem to imply that the agricultural position to-day is very largely due to the dumping which has been allowed to take place. The hon.
1378
Members who moved and seconded the Motion limited it still further by entirely basing their remarks on the question of the importation of wheat from Russia. I should like to point out to the House that, taking the wheat position as far as it concerns us in Great Britain, we are dependent for more than 80 per cent. of our supplies of wheat upon outside sources. We are dependent for barley to the extent of 45 per cent. and to a much smaller extent for oats from the other nations of the world. The policy of the three large parties in this House up to the present time has been such that, in spite of the requests which have been made by agriculture that a protective tariff should be put on in order to benefit agriculture, no party has seen its way to impose such a tariff. When we ask ourselves why, we know perfectly well that the reason which has influenced all political parties up to the present time has been that, on account of the peculiar situation of this country, with its large industrial population dependent, as it has been in the past, to such a great extent upon its export trade, the first essential of that much larger group of the community, the industrial element, was to have cheap food. Every party has felt until the present day, if I may so say, that the interests of agriculture should, if you like, be sacrificed in view of the larger interests of the industrialists, and the claim to have a protective tariff in the belief that it was going to help agriculture has been turned down.
The chief countries which up to the present time have supplied us with wheat number four. The United States, Canada, the Argentine, together with Australia, supplied, in 1928, 91 per cent. of our needs in connection with wheat, and last year 96 per cent. It was only in the present year that we found that there was a diminution in the percentage from those countries. Eighty per cent. for the 10 months up to date is all that we have received from these four countries. We accordingly ask whence have the supplies of wheat come to take the place of that which the other countries have not sent to us? As has been stated, the Russian supply comes before us. Figures have already been quoted showing the total to be 6,700,000 cwts. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion confined themselves entirely to this one item of Russian wheat which they stated

1379
was dumped into this country. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion gave us an interesting speech in regard to Russian wheat which was entirely removed from any of the other great factors connected with the wheat position of the world. If you consider that of the 80,000,000 cwts. which have been received in this country, only 6,700,000 have come from the country to which the hon. Member ascribed all the evils of the present day, it really baffles the belief of any person that such a great result could have been secured by such a small amount of goods being sent into this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member noticed the fact, but almost the same amount of wheat came from certain other countries, which included France, Italy and Roumania. In those 10 months, while Russia sent us 6,700,000 cwts of wheat, those countries sent us 6,200,000 cwts. Why is it that the hon. Member has not indicated that these countries might in some way be responsible for the state in which we find ourselves to-day?
When I look at the world position of wheat, as revealed by the interesting figures given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), I cannot conceive how the Mover of the Motion could have imagined that he could deliver a speech upon this problem without having dealt, at any rate to some slight extent, with the extraordinary position of the wheat supply in Canada, and in the United States of America. Let me remind the House again of those figures, though perhaps in a different way. There was an exporting surplus of 615,000,000 cwts. with a probable demand of only 395,000,000 cwts., leaving a surplus of 220,000,000 cwts. of wheat for which, as far as one can see, there is no likelihood at present of there being any special demand, if you look at the position, you find that the four countries which used to supply us with wheat have an export surplus of 500,000,000 cwts. and that the Russian export surplus is 60,000,000 cwts. We find that the one country which the hon. Member has selected as being the villain of the piece has, roughly, 10 per cent. of this great world surplus, which is really the crux of the whole position, and explains the fall in Wheat prices at the present time. When we find accusations
1380
made that Russia is responsible to the extent suggested by hon. Members opposite, it seems to me that they are taking the case entirely out of the bounds of reason, and that what might possibly to a very small extent have been argued has been absolutely killed by the exaggeration in which they have indulged.
The same sort of thing applies in regard to the way the German wheat problem has been treated in the past. Last year we purchased something like 110,000,000 cwts. of wheat, and Germany supplied 1,500,000 cwts. That was the amount which came into the country under the celebrated system known as the import, bond system, which has been so often criticised and talked about in this House, and which is in abeyance at the present time. So many questions have been asked and so many remarks have been made about it, that one would have imagined that there was a large amount of wheat coming into this country from Germany; 1,500,000 cwts. as against 110,000,000 is the proportion of the wheat received from Germany. Hon. Members opposite naturally keep clear of figures, because the moment they come up against figures the whole of their case in regard to the dumping of wheat from almost any country falls to the ground, and is practically shown to be nothing more than prejudice exhibited against the Russian people. If you go into the question of the position of barley and oats, you will find that in the case of barley there has been an increase, as the hon. Member says, in the importation of Russian barley, but it has displaced barley from another country. I have looked at the figures in regard to prices which were supplied to me, and I find that in the ease of barley the prices are almost exactly the same as the prices relating to the barley which other countries had been selling to Great Britain. The figures from Russia and other countries are practically identical. Therefore, we have a change from the United States to Russia. The Canadian position, I agree, may be a bigger question, but there is no reason whatever, as far as the United States of America is concerned, why the people of this country should not have the benefit of a cheaper commodity.
The next question that arises is, what is dumping? Hon. Members opposite

1381
say that Russian wheat is dumped. That settled the question for them. One or two hon. Members did argue the matter, but the Mover and Seconder of the Motion were cheerfully content in having used the word "dumping." They assumed that Russian wheat was necessarily dumped because they had said that it was dumped. There is nothing Whatever to prove that the Russian wheat supply is dumped into this country. Why should it be dumped any more than the wheat coming from, say, Argentina? Why is it dumped any more than the wheat sent in from Canada or the United States? The idea years ago of what dumped goods meant was that on the Continent a certain amount of goods would be produced and the ring or trust responsible for the goods, not being anxious to see prices lowered in that country, sold the goods at cheap rates overseas because they did not want to sell in their own country. In pre-War years that was usually the kind of dumping that we had in this country and in other parts of Europe. Why should we compare the sale of Russian wheat in this country to a transaction of that kind?
What actually is dumping? One hon. Member suggested that dumping depended upon the rate of wages and the social conditions of the people employed in the manufacture of the goods, or the growing of the crops. Under that definition of dumping it seems to me that we should have to say that all the goods coming from India, China and certain parts of Europe and some parts perhaps of South America would come under the designation of being dumped goods. Another suggestion is that dumping is the sending of goods into this country to be sold below the cost of production in the country of origin. The answer to that has been indicated in the debate, and it is that, in all probability, many countries are to-day selling their wheat supplies at a far lower figure than the bare cost of production. A tremendous fall has taken place in the prices. Therefore, the hon. Member must mean that cereals coming from Canada, the United States and Argentina are all dumped. If he means that, then everything is dumped and it seems hardly worth while to put down a Motion. The question would be whether we should have a protective tariff and
1382
whether it is desirable to have food taxes. Generally speaking, it has never been considered that countries like Canada and the United States are dumping their wheat into Great Britain. It is on those lines that. I am arguing the case.
Another point which has been put forward is that dumping means that the export is artificially assisted by the Government of the exporting country. It is rather extraordinary that at the present time the action of Governments of the great exporting wheat nations is rather the reverse. The United States Government and the Canadian Government are financially assisting the wheat pool by providing money in order that supplies of wheat may be held up, in the hope that at some future time a better figure will be secured for the Canadian and the American farmers when they sell their wheat in this country, or elsewhere. Can it be said that we are to apply the same principle to the Russian Government and to say that the Russian wheat industry is artificially assisted by the Government? It seems to me quite impossible for hon. Members opposite to argue that the Russian industry is being assisted by the Russian Government, because I have always understood from them that the great disaster to Russian industry was that it was in the hands of the Government, and that the one thing needed was to get it out of the hands of the Russian Government as State trading at any time was very unfortunate. I imagine that I might have to answer some of my hon. Friends behind me and try to satisfy them that Russian agriculture is not assisted by the State, but hon. Members opposite are certainly not going to plead that Russian agriculture is at the present time being assisted by the Russian Government. Therefore, that suggestion falls to the ground.
Another idea of dumping that has been put forward is that the goods are not being sold at world's competitive prices. We have had a number of suggestions made and a mass of interesting information has been given as to the prices that have been charged for Russian wheat. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion have suggested that Russia has deliberately come with her wheat supplies and has deliberately undercut, where it was possible, all the other sellers

1383
in the market in order that she might damage in some way the countries to which she was supplying the goods. That is said in regard to Russian commodities in all parts of the world. My belief is that if we look at the financial position of Russia we shall find that there is hardly any country in greater need of financial credit, and there is no other country more desirous of selling her goods at as high a price as possible in order to meet her obligations overseas. Why should it be suggested that she is deliberately selling her goods cheaper than she need do? That seems to be asking us to believe that the Russian Government is in a much stronger financial position than hon. Members opposite would have us believe by their speeches and questions.
The explanation is quite simple. Russia needs credit to meet the purchases of goods overseas and for that purpose she is compelled to sell these goods. If it means selling the goods a little lower than other nations, in view of the extraordinary world position of wheat, she is doing so because of her need of credit, and for no other reason. When we take these various points and begin to analyse them, no arguments have been adduced by the party opposite to prove to me that the Russian wheat supply is dumped. It seems to me that it is a perfectly ordinary business transaction of a community anxious to obtain credit, and in these circumstances they are selling at these low figures. The reason why the prices are so low is not due by any means to the Russian Government but mainly to the extraordinary position of the wheat supplies of the world. I am willing to concede to hon. Members the argument that these Russian wheat supplies naturally have an effect upon an already over-supplied market. It is an important factor when a great exporter, a nation that for many years was one of the largest exporters of wheat, goes for a time out of the market and then comes back into the selling markets of the world. However small the amount of goods that they supply, I can well understand that it would have a certain sentimental effect upon the markets of the world, but it has certainly not had the enormous effect which hon. Members opposite wish to make us believe it has.
There is no case for me to defend in regard to other nations. I have men-
1384
tioned the German figures, and no hon. Member seems to have suggested that any other nation is dumping goods at the present time. Therefore, the answer that I give to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion is that I do not feel that in any way they have proved their case that the goods are dumped. If the goods are not dumped, then automatically the censure upon the Government falls to the ground. At the same time, we are in no way blind to the serious position of agriculture in this country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement two or three months ago in regard to this question. He said that when the Imperial Conference had ended, this question, in the light of the discussions with the Dominions and the information that had been received, would be considered by the Government. It is not part of my duty to deal further with that question now nor does it come under the Motion before us, but I make the statement because I do not want it to be thought that because we resist this Motion we are indifferent to the whole problem.
So long as we say that we are going to have no taxes upon the food of the people of this country—whatever may be the position of hon. Members opposite, that is the position of hon. Members sitting on this side of the House—it follows that, so far as we are concerned, the cheaper the commodity that is coming in from the foreign nations the better for the people of this country. Once we have recognised that the industrial needs of our people are so paramount that no protective tariff can be put on in order to help agriculture, it means in regard to the foreign supplies that are coming in that the cheaper they come in the better for the people of this country.
Commander BELLAIRS: Even if produced by slave labour.
Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member, if I understood him aright, used the word "articles." Does he mean that food should come in as cheap as possible, or other articles?
Mr. GILLETT: I tried to make it clear at the beginning of my remarks that the Motion deals purely with cereals. The question deals with the

1385
dumping of cereals into this country, and the remarks that I am making are entirely confined to that question. I am not going into other questions.
Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then the hon. Member does not refer to the cheapness of other articles?
Mr. GILLETT: I am not discussing the other matters. I am anxious that the House shall not think that we are indifferent to this question or that the wider questions are not receiving the consideration of the Government. We repudiate the suggestion that the goods coming in are dumped to any extent that is at all serious. Broadly speaking, I should say that, now that the German goods have ceased to come in, no Government is dumping cereals into this country. I do not consider that the Russian cereals are being dumped but that it is purely a business transaction. Therefore, the dumping of cereals into this country has practically ceased and there is no need to deal with that question. The question of agriculture can wait until another opportunity arises for discussing it.
Viscount WOLMER: I must protest against the extraordinary speech to which we have just listened from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, and also against the absence of the Minister of Agriculture when we are debating one of the most serious aspects of the agricultural problem. The Minister of Agriculture has not taken sufficient interest in the debate to attend during any of the time it has been in progress. That is treating the House with very little respect, and certainly treating the agricultural and farming community with little respect. Instead of having the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture, we have had a very interesting speech from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, in which, however, he has not attempted to deal with the agricultural problem. In our Motion we deplore:
"the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs."
We are asking the Government what they propose to do to help the British farmer
1386
in the plight in which he now finds himself through the dumping of cereals. The hon. Member made practically no mention at all of this question except in his last few minutes, and all he says is that the matter is now going to be considered by His Majesty's Government. He referred us to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st August last, when he said:
"The critical position of cereal farmers demands the earliest possible attention. The question of the condition of this class of agriculturists in different parts of the Empire will be discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, with special reference to Bulk Purchase, Import Boards and Stabilisation of Prices …. As soon as the conclusions of the Imperial Conference are known, the Government will undertake whatever practicable steps can be devised to put cereal growing in this country on an economic foundation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1930; cols. 891–2, Vol. 242.]
Mr. DUNCAN: What more do you want?
Viscount WOLMER: We want the Government to do it. We were hoping to hear the steps which the Government proposed to take to implement that policy. The time has passed for the sowing of wheat in this country, and to hold up the matter until this late period of the year makes any assistance to wheat growing practically impossible as far as the present year is concerned. We are entitled to demand that immediate measures shall be introduced by the Government. Instead, we get a very interesting and learned dissertation from the hon. Member as to what exactly constitutes dumping and what does not constitute dumping. What we mean by dumping is the importation of cereals into this country under unfair conditions. Last year we said that the dumping of cereals from Germany was unfair, because they came assisted by a State subsidy. We say that the import of cereals from Russia which has been taking place is dumping and is unfair, because they are produced under economic conditions Which would not be tolerated for a moment in this country, and are sold in this country without any relation to the cost of production and for reasons which bear no relation whatever to ordinary trade transactions. Hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies have been bound to recognise

1387
the injury to the farmers of this country by transactions of this sort which the Chancellor recognised in his statement last August.
There is no difference of opinion about the facts. The late Minister of Agriculture said that the dumping of German wheat into this country was quite deplorable, and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department himself has admitted that the Russian wheat was offered at prices lower than any other wheat in the world. It is this importation, this dumping, it may be of only 14,000,000 quarters, at prices which are substantially lower than the wheat prices anywhere else which caused the great break in prices which has been the ruination of cereal farmers in this country. We complain that the Government have done nothing. They promised agriculturists to make farming pay. The Prime Minister wrote articles in the public Press saying that the Labour party alone is the only one which has a definite plan for the salvation of agriculture, and then the Government spend 14 months doing nothing. At the end of that period the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets up in this House, and reads out a statement saying that as soon as the Imperial Conference is over they are going to put cereal growing on an economic foundation. When the debate on cereal growing takes place, when we are considering the difficulties of cereal farmers, the Minister of Agriculture does not take the trouble to turn up.
Not only have the Government done nothing to assist the cereal farmer, but the actions they have taken have been in the direction of prejudicing his case. The most-favoured treatment which they have granted to the Russian Government is the result of the Treaty they signed last April. About £2,500,000 of the British taxpayers' money has been devoted towards assisting and financing trade with Russia, and the first result of that is the dumping of millions of quarters of wheat on to our markets at cut-throat prices. That is the sort of trade which dislocates the industries of this country and does not offer a basis on which permanent trade between the two countries can be continued. Our complaint about hon. Members opposite
1388
is that their agricultural policy is all eyewash. They have not produced a single thing to help the farmers of this country. They talk about settling 100,000 families on farms. Before they have been in office very much longer there will be 100,000 more agricultural workers out of work.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I want to answer one or two points which have been put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). He has told us that our trade with Russia has resulted in millions of quarters of wheat being dumped here at impossible prices. I should like to know what percentage of Russian wheat has come here this year. If the Russians have dumped wheat here, if they are the scoundrels, then the Canadians are much greater dumpers, much greater scoundrels. For every quarter of Russian wheat which has been dumped here, the Canadians have dumped 100 quarters. I am taking the figures over a series of years. If dumping is a crime, then the late Government ought to have dealt with it. We do not know what the policy of the Opposition is. We knew what their policy was in 1923. In 1924 we were promised no tariffs on food. In 1929 they had no policy at all, and now that they are in the cool shades of Opposition they have discovered that selling wheat at a cheap price is a crime. If they do intend to put a tax upon food, then it should be another olive branch between Lord Beaverbrook and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
The public is entitled to know precisely and exactly the policy of the Opposition. Do they or do they not intend to put a tariff on food? Is it a crime to sell food here cheap? If it is, then it is less of a crime if food is sold deal, and in order to be absolved altogether from crime the higher the price the more virtuous you are. If we could only produce famine conditions we should all be saints. The nearer we get to famine conditions, the dearer the food, the nearer we get to millennium conditions. We are told by hon. Members opposite that the trouble is that there is too much food in the world. What a crazy world! All these troubles arise from the fact that there is too much wheat, too much barley. What a crazy world; when food is a blessing, when nature is generous and produces food in

1389
great abundance. The great crime of Russia is that she is sending food here at a cheap price. Why are the Russians selling their food cheap? Do they want to sell it cheap, or do they want to get the biggest price they can get for it? Do they deliberately sell food under market prices? Why do the Russians take the prices they do; why are they forced to take the prices which they are now taking? If we were to give Russia longer terms of credit it would not be necessary for her to take the market price.
7.0 p.m.
We are forcing Russia into a position where she has to take any old price that is offered. They have to buy goods. Can hon. Members opposite tell me how Russia is going to buy goods unless she sells goods, unless she performs a modern miracle and buys goods without credit? If hon. Members will tell us how Russia is going to buy goods without selling goods, they will tell us something which even the "Daily Express" will be glad to learn. When there was real slave labour in Russia, in the days when the Tsar was on the throne and the Romanoffs ruled Russia with the help of Rasputin, and when they sent us twice as much grain as they do now, there was no talk about slavery then. If some of those rumours, which are not so frequent in 1930 as they were in 1919, that the Soviet Government has fallen proved true—the Soviet Government used to fall twice a week then, but now it falls only twice a month because Riga is getting tired and the lie factories are not finding the same, market—and if the Tsarist Government were to come back and reaction was again in the saddle, then there would not be so much talk about slave labour in Russia. The real truth is that agricultural labour in Russia was never so well paid as at this moment nor were agricultural conditions ever so good. The Soviet Government with their State farms are giving the peasant the same conditions in the country to-day as exist in the towns.
Mr. BUTLER: Can the hon. Member tell us what they are paying to-day?
Mr. HAYCOCK: I cannot give the precise figures, but, in terms of buying power, the peasants were never better off in the whole history of Russia than at the present time.
Captain GUNSTON: What is the use of having buying power if you cannot buy food?
Mr. HAYCOCK: If the hon. and gallant Member will read some other paper beside the "Morning Post," he will learn that Russia has had the largest grain crop in her history, that her exportable surplus is 10,000,000 quarters of wheat and that she is only going to export 5,000,000 quarters of grain. That must mean that Russia has more food to eat than ever before.
Captain GUNSTON: What about the bread queues?
Mr. HAYCOCK: In Russia, if there is a shortage, there is a queue, and everybody takes his turn. In that country they said that it was not fair or just that some people should have immeasurably too much for doing nothing while those who produced the wealth went short. Therefore, they divided it up. They have critical times there, and they are only doing what we did in this country in time of war. We did it here, only there were some people who were able to cheat the queue.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What about the surplus wheat?
Mr. HAYCOCK: The surplus wheat in Russia this year is 10,000,000 quarters, but in Russia they are eating more of their wheat. If the Tsarist Government were in power, they would be exporting at least 10,000,000 quarters of wheat, but, because of the system now prevailing, only 5,000,000 quarters are being exported, which means that the Russian people are eating more wheat.
Captain GUNSTON: If there is a surplus of wheat and food in Russia, why are there all these food queues?
Mr. HAYCOCK: There are no food queues as far as wheat and bread are concerned. This Motion is concerned with cereals and not with other foods. There is no shortage of cereals in Russia. But, if the Tsarist Government needed money and found it necessary to export wheat to get money, would it have mattered how hungry the Russians were in the bad old days? Even when famine was stalking the land wheat left Russia for these shores and no one complained. It is not a question of Russian wheat, but of getting something to say against

1391
a country whose system you do not like. You system of Tsarist Government which was supported by former Governments. In 1905 when Stolypin—
Mr. SPEAKER: It is now 1930.
Mr. HAYCOCK: There have been a number of questions about the co-operative movement, but only 14 per cent. of their purchases were from Russia and the other 86 per cent. consisted of Empire and home wheat. The co-operative movement have a much better record than the independent buyers. The people who buy the Russian wheat and other wheat are the millers and business people. It reminds me of the people who want tariffs on foreign motor cars and rejoice in the ownership of a Chrysler or some other American motor car. People who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. It is the big business people of this country who are taking advantage of the world market in primary products, while the producers of the world are suffering. Tariffs are no way out of it. I have here a letter, which I will read, from Canada, where they have tariffs, and we can see whether tariffs prevent dumping and afford a cure. The letter is from my father who was once leader of the farmers' party in Canada:
"Farming operations are now at the lowest ebb we have ever had in Canada. Our taxes are the highest …. I may be compelled to sell my sheep, lock my gates or else go back to the farm myself. I will have to decide soon. We have never had better crops nor poorer prices. Oats 20 cents a bushel, wheat 55 cents a bushel, barley 25 cents a bushel, onions 75 cents a bushel, and so on. Everybody is discouraged."
Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: What about these imports?
Mr. HAYCOCK: You do not like to hear about Canada. It is the wrong thing at the moment to talk about agricultural conditions in Canada. They have their tariffs there, they have the highest tariff wall in history, and conditions are worse than they ever were. All over the North American continent things are impossible. They are so impossible that in last Monday's "Daily Express" we saw photographs of people on the other side of the water carrying a label of their occupation pinned upon
1392
their foreheads asking for work for one dollar—4s. 2d.—a week. I know things are difficult here for the farming community. I know how important it is that we should have a prosperous agriculture and that we should get as much out of our soil as we can. We live by selling goods, and, if we do not sell, we cannot buy. The other fellow is putting up his tariff walls and preventing us from selling. We must get as much from our acres as we can, but we are in dispute as to the method to adopt.
I know things are bad here, but the fact that the Russians are sending us wheat is not the only reason why things are bad. If there is no money in farming and all the farmers are losing money and living on the money they owe, then land ought to be valueless and should be selling at less than nothing. Where is land now being sold at a small price? I want to help the farmers and to see that they get a square deal here. Those who are responsible for the low prices at the moment are not the Russians but the Canadians. I am speaking as a Canadian who is still very fond of his country and his countrymen. We want not merely Russia to give us a square deal but Canada too. We have heard a lot from Mr. Bennett about how we can bring the Empire closer together. If the rest of the world gave this country the same deal that Canada does, then we could not live. If the other portion of the world put up their tariff wall and kept us out of their markets as Canada keeps us out of her market, we would not be able to get food.
Mr. SPEAKER: This debate is coming on to-morrow.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I shall not talk about Canada any more. We are going to depend on world trade. There is no doubt that world trade will be more indispensable in future than it has ever been. Russia should provide us with an enormous market. There is no country in the world which offers better possibilities for British trade than Russia. a farming and agricultural and raw material producing country occupying one-sixth of the area of the globe. We should be getting into that market now. The only way in which we can get into it is by buying Russia's goods in order that we may send goods to her. I ask those who

1393
think in terms of the agriculturist to think in terms also of the engineer, of the employés of Platt Brothers, of Mather and Platt, of Metropolitan-Vickers, who are now working overtime in order to provide goods for Russia. Unless Russia can sell her wheat and her petrol and her timber, she cannot buy the products of Armstrong Whitworth, of Platt Brothers, of Mather and Platt and the other manufacturers who are particularly glad at the moment to sell goods to Russia. For everything that they have ordered the Russians have met their commitments in full. There has been no bad debt created on Soviet Government orders. Do we or do we not want that trade? If we want the trade I ask those who are to follow me in this debate to tell me how the Russians can possibly pay unless they are able to export their wheat, their cereals, their hides, their flax and their petrol.
Mr. FRANK OWEN: I do not propose to answer all the questions which the last speaker has raised, because if I did I should get away from the subject of the Motion, as the hon. Member himself did. A little while ago an hon. Member asked what Liberals intended to do if this Resolution was carried to a Division. I think we can promise him that we shall vote against the Resolution, and for two reasons. In the first place we do not know, because we have not been told, what are the immediate measures which should be introduced for rectifying the present state of affairs; and, secondly, I do not think the case that foreign countries are dumping cereals into this country has been sustained in fact. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal party made it clear a week ago that he was against clumping. What has not been made clear is what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind when he talked about dumping. It is very important that the farmers of this country should know exactly where each party stand when a declaration of that kind is made. We disagree as to what constitutes dumping. Many Members of the Conservative party hold that dumping means any kind of cheap imports admitted into this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate many of them believe that. Other people, and among them several Liberal leaders, seem to think that dumping is where goods are permitted to enter at a cost
1394
lower than the cost of production in the country of origin. It is extremely difficult always to say what is the cost of production and in my view it is irrelevant.
Take the case of wheat. I have had some remarkable figures given to me this afternoon. We have been told that the world surplus of wheat is something like 153,000,000 quarters, and we have been shown quite clearly that the world demand is something like 94,000,000 quarters. It is obvious that the vast surplus above what the world requires must be loaded on the world's markets at a price which is a great deal lower than the cost of production. Of that total it has been shown that Russia has in fact exported less than 10 per cent. It has been shown quite clearly, too, that Canada has been the biggest dumper of the lot. I want to give one other set of figures. In the years 1909 to 1913 the average export from Russia was something like 19,000,000 quarters out of the world export surplus of 75,000,000 quarters. To-day it is something like 14,000,000 out of 153,000,000 quarters. These figures show quite clearly that Russia is not the cause of the present low prices in the world market. In fact Russia has got better prices in the world market than has Canada.
I had some more remarkable figures given to me this morning in the City. One big transaction carried through towards the end of October enabled Russia, by cleverer manipulation, to obtain 29s. a quarter for certain grain which was put on the market at a time when the best Canadian, of far superior quality, was obtaining only 27s. To-day you can buy Russian grain at 22s. a quarter and Canadian at 2s. or 3s. above that figure. The difference is due to the fact that the Canadian grain is of superior quality to the Russian. In fact this Canadian grain, now being sold at this abnormally low figure, was offered for sale at something like 50s. or 55s. a quarter, but was not sold owing largely to the operations of great grain holding corporations in the United States and Canada.
We must face the situation honestly and plainly, and we must come to the conclusion that nothing can in fact ease

1395
the situation until prices are low enough on the grain market to enable these vast stocks to be disposed of. I sit for a grain-growing Division, and I say that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative party who hold out a hope to the British farmer of guaranteeing his price under an increased production of grain are practising upon him a cruel deception. The markets simply cannot bear further great accumulations of grain stocks. Another thing I must mention. It has been stated in the Press from time to time that the Russian Government are exporting all their white wheat and compelling the Russian peasants to eat rye and black bread. Anybody who has been in Russia or has read anything about Russia knows that the Russian peasant never has eaten a white loaf, and that to-day he is eating the rye loaf just as his forbears for generations have done. It is not a true statement of the case to say that the Russian Government are compelling the peasant workers to accept a lower standard of living than that which existed before.
There is one case in which dumping is a serious menace and might be dealt with, and that is where vast stocks are suddenly unloaded on the market, with the result that they dislocate prices and drive them down, when there is not sufficient supply to meet the demands which are created. A case of that kind can be called dumping. But the trouble is that you can never say that until you are looking back upon it. The only character which real dumping has is that it is spasmodic, and you can never say that until you look back upon it in retrospect.
A point not yet emphasised is that all this dumping of grain or this export of grain at the present time is in fact due to the policy which has been pursued in many great grain-producing countries by grain-selling corporations and grain-holding corporations. The dumping to which we are subject to-day is in fact a condition of the tariff-mongering and export-board-mongering world. These great stocks can only be released on the world market when they have been accumulated, and they are only accumulated, in the hope that by some artificial means you can raise the price of wheat above the world price.
1396
In every country that has tried it the result has been a tragic failure for the producer. Let me reply to a challenge that was issued by one hon. Member who has spoken. He asked me whether in my view any commodities were dumped in this country. That is outside the terms of this Motion, but I would say that it has not yet been proved that any commodities have been dumped into this country. In fact there is in operation machinery for dealing with dumped products. Under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921 there is machinery for dealing with dumping. The only two cases that have been submitted to that Committee, under Section 11 of the Act, were turned down. No case has yet been made out in that respect.
There are one or two things which might be done to ease the situation. Russia is unloading these stocks on the world because she so urgently requires money for the industrialisation of the country. She is selling at the best price she can get. The cost of production does not enter into the matter. If we in this country were prepared to give Russia additional credits, I am confident we should in great measure ease the situation. But the whole difficulty of the world to-day, in the grain trade, is not the fact that there is Free Trade in this country, but the fact that there is too little Free Trade in every other country in the world. I do not see how we can persuade the nations to give up the fiscal system that they have adopted, but we in this country should adapt our agriculture to the Free Trade system which we still maintain, and if we cannot grow wheat here at an economic price we should give up growing wheat.
Lieut.-Colonel GAULT Lieut.-Colonel GAULT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Houses now prepared to come to a decision.
Question put,
"That this House deplores the inaction of His Majesty's Government in taking no steps to safeguard British agricultural interests from the heavy losses which are being caused by the dumping of foreign cereals upon the home market, and is of opinion that immediate measures should be introduced for the purpose of rectifying this state of affairs."
The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 224.

Division No. 35.]

AYES.

[7.29 p.m.

Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Albery, Irving James

Galbraith, J. F. W.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Penny, Sir George

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Pybus, Percy John

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Gower, Sir Robert

Ramsbotham, H.

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Grace, John

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Atholl, Duchess of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesali)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Balniel, Lord

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bellaire, Commander Carlyon

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Salmon, Major I.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Samuel, Samuel (Widsworth, Putney)

Bracken, B.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Savery, S. S.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hartington, Marquess of

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Simms, Major-General J.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Campbell, E. T.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kincidine, C.)

Carver, Major W. H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hoare, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Smithers, Waldron

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Christie, J. A.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Colville, Major D. J.

Liewellin, Major J. J.

Thomson, Sir F.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Locker-Lampson, Corn. O. (Handsw'th)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Train, J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (SomerSet, Yeovil)

Macquisten, F. A.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Dug dale, Capt. T. L.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

England, Colonel A.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

Womersley, W. J.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Muirhead, A. J.

Lieut.-Colonel Gault and Mr. R. A.

Fielden E. B.

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Butler.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Calne, Derwent Half-

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Cameron. A. G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Cape, Thomas

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetlano)

Alpass, J. H.

Charleton, H. C.

Harbord, A.

Ammon, Charles George

Clarke. J. S.

Hardie, George D.

Arnott, John

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harris, Percy A.

Aske, Sir Robert

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Attlee, Clement Richard

Daggar, George

Haycock, A. W.

Ayles, Walter

Dallas, George

Hayday, Arthur

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Dalton, Hugh

Hayes, John Henry

Barnes, Alfred John

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Burnley)

Barr, James

Day, Harry

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Batey, Joseph

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Bellamy, Albert

Dukes, C.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Duncan, Charles

Herrlotts, J.

Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Ede, James Chuter

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Benson. G.

Edmunds, J. E.

Hopkin, Daniel

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

Horrabin, J. F.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Bowen, J. W.

Foot. Isaac

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Bowerman, Rt. Han. Charles W.

Freeman, Peter

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Bromfield, William

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Johnston, Thomas

Bromley, J.

Gill, T. H.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Brooke, W.

Gillett, George M.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Brothers. M.

Gossling, A. G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Gould. F.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Burgess, F. G.

Groves, Thomas E.

Kelly. W. T.

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Kennedy, Thomas

1398

1399

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Sinkinson, George

Knight, Holford

Mort, D. L.

Sitch, Charles H.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Moses, J. J. H.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Lathan, G.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Lawrence, Susan

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Lawson, John James

Oliver, George Harold (Ilikeston)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Snell, Harry

Leach, W.

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Palin, John Henry

Sorensen, R

Lees, J.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Stamford, Thomas W

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Perry, S. F

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Strauss, G. R.

Logan, David Gilbert

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

Sutton, J. E.

Longbottom, A. W.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Longden, F.

Pole, Major D. G

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W)

Lowth, Thomas

Potts, John S.

Tillett, Ben

Lunn, William

Quibell, D. J. K

Tinker, John Joseph

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson.

Toole, Joseph

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Richards, R

Tout, W. J

McElwee, A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Viant, S. P.

McEntee, V. L.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Watkins, F. C.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Ritson, J.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Romeril, H. G.

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

McShane, John James

Rosbotham. D. S. T.

Wellock, Wilfred

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Rowson, Guy

Welsh, James (Palsley)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Mansfield, W.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

West, F. R.

March, S.

Sanders, W. S

Westwood, Joseph

Marcus, M.

Sawyer, G. F.

White, H, G.

Markham, S. F.

Scott, James

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Marley, J.

Scurr, John

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Marshall, Fred

Sexton, James

Wilkinson, Ellen C

Mathers, George

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianeily)

Messer, Fred

Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Middleton, G.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Milner, Major J.

Sherwood, G. H.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Montague, Frederick

Shield, George William

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Shillaker, J. F.

Morley, Ralph

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Simmons, C. J

Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

AGRICULTURE.
Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential to the well-being of the nation that the economic position of farmers other than occupiers of family or special farms, which is so bad that a largo proportion are now insolvent and will be shortly compelled to give up their farms, should be improved; and, seeing that this condition is in the main caused by the wide gap between the cost of production and the sale price of the products of the farm, accentuated in great measure by legislation of this House, it is further in its opinion imperative that steps be at once taken by providing a guaranteed price for cereals and power to regulate, prohibit, or license the imports of minor agricultural products in case of glut, or otherwise to improve the condition of the industry and make it possible for farmers to make a living out of the cultivation of the soil."
I make no apology for bringing before the House another aspect of agriculture. The position of the industry and the widespread distress prevailing in it are so serious, and its prospects are so gloomy, that I shall take every opportunity which presents itself to bring the subject before the House for discussion in order to try
1400
to compel the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture—moved as I think they are largely by townsmen—to see that something must be done to place the industry in a safer and better position. I speak as one who has been a farmer from the age of 21 years until the present, and I leave it to the House to consider the number of years of experience which that represents. I only make the statement to show that I am fully conversant, with the difficulties of agriculture, and to that extent I speak with some little authority. I propose to confine myself to the terms of the Motion which deal first with the position of farmers, and it will be observed that omit for the purposes of this discussion family farms and special farms.
Mr. LEIF JONES: What are special farms?
Sir H. CAUTLEY: Special farms are those which are devoted to high-class pedigree stock, or to some, special brand of stock, or some special kind of produce. The family farm, as is well-known

1401
to the House., is a farm worked by the farmer and his family and its distinguishing feature is that it avoids any obligation as to the rates of wages prescribed under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924. As a member of the Royal Commission which considered the economic position of agriculture in 1919. I came to the conclusion that the wages bill on the ordinary farm represented 40 per cent of the total outgoings and that, in the case of a purely corn-growing farm, it might run up to 50 or even 60 per cent of the outgoings. It will therefore be seen that the wages bill is a most important element in the cost of production. The family farm is free from that obligation and the family farm to-day has a reasonable measure of success and makes a reasonable profit though I believe that the development of family farms is likely to receive a check because the sons and daughters of the farmer nowadays, when they arrive at the age of 18 or 19, are not satisfied to work without wages. In great measure the family farm to-day is run by the farmer and his wife with the aid, more or less, of child labour and the tendency is for that system to increase.
There are only one or two figures which I propose to put to the House. There are something like 30,000,000 acres under cultivation and there were in 1925 10,682,000 acres under arable cultivation. A steady reduction has been taking place in the amount of land under the plough. In 1929 it was reduced to 9,848,000 acres, showing a reduction of 734,000 acres, or getting on for 1,000,000 acres in the four years. The agricultural workers in 1925 numbered 803,338 and in 1929, 770,252. showing a reduction of 33,086, and that reduction is steadily going on.
I put before the House the position today as one affecting the tenant farmer or the occupying owner and the wage-earners who are working on the farms. In my opinion, the wage-earners on the farms have a better life than the small-holders. It is only the most skilful men, with a real knowledge of agriculture, who can succeed as smallholders, with an immense amount of work and application, and with the advantage, above all, of having been brought up to agriculture all their lives, and having almost imbued in them the knack of tilling the soil and, what is equally if not more important,
1402
the knack of being able to look after stock and bring it to its perfection. The amount of produce sold on the farms of this country amounted in 1929 to about £220,000,000, so that we are dealing with an industry of vital importance as to the amount of production, as to the number of men employ in it, and as to the nature of its production.
What is the condition of this industry to-day? I go among farmers of all kinds, I hear their complaints, I see their work, I hear the views of their valuers, their auditors, their accountants, and in every single class of farm, except the family farm, I hear the same report, namely, that for the last two or three years they have been working at a loss. I am convinced that many of them are to-day on the verge of insolvency and do not know which way to turn, that, there is not a bright spot nor any good prospect before them, that they will have to give up their farms, and that their land is likely to go out of cultivation. I challenge anyone here to say that that is an exageration of the position. It may be said that many industries at the present time have an equally black outlook, but so long as I am a Member of this House I mean to air and to discuss the agricultural position and to see whether, for the oldest industry in the world, we cannot do something to prevent the destruction that is looming in the future.
If you look at the bankruptcy returns in this country for the last three or four years, you will see that farmers occupy one year the first place, the second year the second place, and the third year the third place in the total number of men who are going bankrupt; and farmers as a rule do not go bankrupt. They struggle on to the last, and they approach their landlords before the final crash comes and get let off the arrears, it may be, of last year's rent, or something of that sort, and save what they can. Let us look at the prices of cereals. In 1925 the average price of wheat was 50s. 8d. a quarter; in 1929 it was 42s. 2d; in 1930 it was 30s. 3d.; and to-day it is about 25s. or 26s. Barley in 1925 was at 40s. 3d.; in 1929, 35s. 5d.; and in 1930, 22s. 7d. Oats in 1925 were 25s. 9d.; in 1929, 24s. 7d.; in 1930, 17s. 5d.; and to-day they are 17s.; and you can buy Argentine wheat at the port at 12s. and even, I have been told, at 10s.

1403
Look at it another way. If the average price of everything that the farmer had to sell before the War was 100, to-day it is about 140 to 152, but, the cost of labour, if you allow for the reduction in hours, is, instead of 100, about 205 to 210, or more than double what it was. The selling price of the goods is only 40 per cent., or two-fifths, more than it was, while the cost of living has gone up to about 150. The figures that I have given show that the sole cause of this depression and of this state of insolvency is that the selling value of the products of the farms is less than the actual cost of production; and the seriousness of the position is that it affects all classes of farming.
Perhaps I ought not to say all classes at the present moment, because I would say that milk farming to-day is on a profitable footing. The milk farmers are making a living, but the other classes of farmers, the wheat and tillage farmers, are doing so badly that they are having to turn to milk production, with the result that a lower class of milk is being produced and that the prices of milk are going down; and even this last year, last September, although the prices were fixed by arrangement, a number of milk sellers were not able to sell their output. Therefore, the whole profession of agriculture hangs together, and unless you can keep going the bulk of the farmers, who are not engaged in producing milk, they naturally tend to change their method of farming. The position to-day is that a farmer's expenses remain practically stationary, and are possibly going up. He is compelled to pay the statutory wage, and in this connection I would make this statement, so that I shall not be misunderstood.
I have here the report that I wrote for the Royal Commission on Agriculture. I stated then, and I state now, that in my opinion a statutory wage for the farm worker was and is necessary, and more so than in any other industry, in all probability. I maintain that position to-day, and the point that I am making is not that the statutory wage should be done away with—I should like to see not only the present minimum but an increased minimum—but my position is that Parliament has required the farmer to pay this wage and has made no provision to enable him to do so.
1404
I shall call attention to a number of other Acts of Parliament, all of which have increased the cost of production and hampered the farmer, and Parliament has not done a single thing to enable him to meet these fresh obligations or to face the disasters that are coming upon him.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is not here. He has very courteously written me a letter to say that he is ill, but the Minister who takes his place this evening will, I hope, answer this question: While Parliament puts on to a single industry a number of duties and requirements that add to its cost of production, is there not an obligation on Parliament to see that that industry is put in such a position as will enable it to meet these fresh obligations and higher expenses? I can see no answer to that question. I have already pointed out that the wages bill is the chief outgoing on any farm, and on the cereal growing farms it runs up to 50 per cent. and I believe, if my recollection serves me, up to 60 per cent. It was not only in fixing the amount of wages that Parliament added to the expense of farming, but it was by fixing the statutory hours that it made the working of a farm much more difficult. It is extremely difficult to get the men to continue their team work overtime, at haying time and when the weather suits, and it was in the dislocation of the working of the farms that the wages board hit the farmer very badly, as well as in the fixing of the wages.
8.0 p. m.
This House a short time ago passed an Act under which the Milk and Dairies Orders are made, and that has caused a very great additional cost on many of the owner-occupiers; and one-third of the farms are now farmed by their owners. I know of one farm of about 100 acres with a rental value of about £120 a year, and the obligation put on that owner occupier was £380, which he had to pay so as to continue the business previously carried on, which was the only business that he could operate on that particular farm. We had the Tuberculosis Order, the Swine Fever Order and the Sheep Scab Order. The farmer is troubled by inspectors; I do not suggest every day, but frequently inspectors go to inspect his farm, and it all adds to the cost of pro-

1405
duction at a time when the farmer is at his wits' end to know how to make ends meet. I say nothing about the loss that has been caused by the landlord being shut out of the picture because of the enormously increased taxes that have been put upon him, so that the assistance that many of the tenant farmers received from their landlords has been withdrawn. We are told that farmers do not know how to carry on their business, and that there is a large amount of derelict land. I would refer the Ministry to their own Blue Book on agricultural output. It showed that out of 31,000,000 acres, only 75,000 that could be used for agriculture was not being used. Out of 400,000 farms in 1929, there were only 62 applications to agricultural committees for a certificate that the tenants were not farming in accordance with the most approved methods of the industry; and out of those only 27 certificates were granted; 27 refused and nine withdrawn.
A report made a few years ago by three experts that farming in Great Britain was better than in any other country in the world. I do not say that there are not bad farmers, but the knowledge and practice of farming is better in this country than in any other. The position of farmers is not due to bad farming or to lack of knowledge of the business; it is due, in the first instance, to these duties that have been put on to them by this House. Rents have not been increased, and in the Liberal "Yellow Book" it is said that they are the same as a hundred years ago. The security of tenure is almost as good as anywhere in the world. I have made clear that, in the words of this Motion, there is a
"wide gap between the cost of production and the sale price of the products of the farm."
I go on to say that that is
"accentuated in great measure by legislation of this House"
through the Measures which I have instanced. I say that it is
"imperative that steps be at once taken by providing a guaranteed price."
Now we come to remedies. What is the main cause of this gap, in addition to the causes I have mentioned? It is the landing in this country of the surplus agricultural products of every other country in the world.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Sanders): We sell our surplus goods too.
Sir H. CAUTLEY: We sell our surplus goods all over the world. I am pointing out that the surplus products of every other country come to this country and do not go to other countries. They are concentrated here. The essential difference is that countries, apart from this, are not allowed to send their products into other countries; they all come here. I agree that that secures cheap food, and it may be to the interest of this country that we should be a receptacle for all the surplus agricultural products of the whole world in order to secure it, but is the hon. Member content, if that be so, to leave our agriculture absolutely defenceless, and to see our land becoming derelict and laid waste? There are a number of farmers of my acquaintance who have found the position so bad that they have said, "I will sell my horses, I will put my land down to grass, and I will farm with a dog and a stick." And that is what they are doing. They are living in their farmhouses, they have dismissed their men and sold their horses, and they carry a certain amount of stock which they look after themselves. That is what they are reduced to. Is that what we want in this country?
My object is to see the agricultural worker and the tenant farmer on the land. That is essential to the welfare of this country. I am not going to talk of war and that kind of thing, but are we to leave ourselves absolutely unprotected, without growing any corn in this country and without having any of our land under cultivation? That is what we shall be driven to if we submit to the world's agricultural products being landed in this country without any attempt to regulate them. How did the present position come about? Up to 1916 there was no fixed wage or guaranteed price. From 1854 to 7879 English agriculture was very prosperous, and grass was ploughed up and men were employed. In 1879 we were for the first time laid open to American corn being sent here as ballast, and from 1879 to 1894 we saw land going down to grass. I myself sold corn at 19s. a quarter and I know of it being sold at 17s. A whole class of farmers cleared out. A few men arose, careful and

1407
thrifty fellows, many of them brought up as farm workers, and by hard work agriculture steadily improved. Then came the war. The country was in need of a large accession of corn-growing land, and the only way it could be obtained was by the land being ploughed up. In order to enable farmers to do that, a subsidy or guaranteed price was given to them. Everybody felt that if the farmers were given a guaranteed price or subsidy, the workmen must share it, and it was then that the statutory wage was fixed.
At the end of the War, the Royal Commission to which I have referred was appointed, and I was a member of it. We decided that that ought to be carried on. If I had time, I would like to read three paragraphs in my separate report which exactly foretold what has occurred in the last few years. A subsidy was granted by the Act of 1920, but it was on a wrong method of calculation, with which I could never agree; and in the following July the Ministry of the day repealed the whole Act. There had been a sudden drop in prices, and the subsidy was so heavy on the method of calculation adopted that the country could not stand it. Thereupon, the guaranteed price was removed, and the standard wage was removed too. Nobody at that time ever thought that you could have the one without the other. If a subsidy were given to the farmer, it was clear that the farm worker should share it; if a standard wage were given to the worker, some security must be given to the farmer to enable him to pay it. In 1924 we had the Agricultural Wages Board, which tied up the farmer and gave him the standard wage without any security, and left him to fight with one hand behind his back.
What is to be done? If you are content—and those who vote against my Motion must be content—to let agriculture die, the only alternative is to turn this country into ranches. If we are to do anything, anybody with an intimate knowledge of agriculture will agree that the growing of wheat is pivotal of the whole industry. Wheat is the foundation of the rotation. Any farm which grows cereals or keeps cattle must grow wheat. You must have wheat straw for the cattle in order to make manure to
1408
keep up the fertility of the soil. You must have wheat for thatching the stacks, and it comes into other things too. We must keep up the growing of wheat in this country. What are the Government doing? We laugh at the idea that the Government can teach agriculture anything by their large-scale farming experiments. Large-scale farming of the prairie kind if for new countries, and as soon as those new countries become developed they go in for closer settlement and mixed farms such as we have here. If I am rightly informed, the standard farm in America is about 300 acres, the size of farm that is common here. It is only on farms with reasonable-sized fields that one can get shelter for the cattle by the hedges and on which one can work all the year round. It is all too long to explain now, but in my view it is absolutely essential to keep to farms of that size.
As for the Government's proposal to put unemployed men on smallholdings, well, let them try it! I think it is a cruel thing to put on a smallholding a man who is not an agriculturist, who has not been brought up to the calling. That the Government will get plenty of applicants is evident. If they were to fit up a number of drapers' or grocers' shops with all the necessary appliances and propose to men that they should take over those shops, giving to each man £50 or more, and a little extra money to keep him, there would be thousands of applicants. But putting unemployed men on smallholdings will not improve the agricultural situation. Then there are the Government's marketing proposals. Instead of selling his produce to his neighbour, a man must sell it through some organisation. We have our markets close at hand and, except in purely industrial counties, we have the best markets, and can do all our marketing for ourselves.
What is it, then, that is necessary to close the gap? All we ask for is something which will make it possible for agriculture to be carried on in a way which will prove remunerative to those engaged in it. We ask for a subsidy, not the subsidy that was put on and found to be unworkable, but a subsidy for wheat growing, because that will keep a farm going. I will not to-night deal with the amount of the subsidy. If we could get

1409
a subsidy for wheat growing it would put arable farming on its feet, it would make it safe, and save farmers from becoming bankrupt; and it could be done at comparatively small cost to this nation. Then, we cannot leave out of account the smaller farmers, the fruit growers, the tomato growers, the potato growers, the market gardeners and people of that kind. I am not so conversant with that side of production as I am with ordinary, simple farming, but I put it to the Government that we have the best market for that produce in our own country, and we could provide a good living for numbers of men in running fruit farms and supplying the market with soft fruits and with bush fruits if we took care that they were not ruined by the surplus production of other countries which comes here. By a system of prohibition, licensing and methods of that kind we could make that class of farming reasonably profitable without creating excessive prices, and we should not see our people having to leave their crops in the fields because they were not worth gathering at the prices offered. We should not see thousands of acres of potatoes left to rot because they were not worth sending to market in face of the influx of foreign produce. I am sorry I have spoken so long to-night, but I feel very keenly about the position of agriculture, and I have great pleasure in moving this Motion.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so with very great pleasure. I should like to deal mainly with the remedies for the horrible state of affairs which we have been discussing during practically the whole of the sitting to-day. Let us take the question of a guaranteed price for wheat. It has been urged that a guarantee would be too expensive. If we look at the figures for 1929 we see that, roughly speaking, 1,300,030 tons of wheat were produced in this country in that year, as compared with total imports of 7,500,000 tons. Let us assume that the guarantee will cost the Treasury about £1 per quarter. That would not come to so very much. If the whole of the wheat grown at home came under that guarantee, it would cost us, perhaps, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, but a great deal of the wheat is used for seed, and there is a certain quantity which is not up to milling
1410
quality. A guarantee was tried before, but proved a failure because the scheme was bad. I will suggest reasons for that failure and show how it could be avoided in future.
It has been well said that wheat is the stabilising crop, the main crop of the country, and the most important one to help. The reason for that is that when wheat growers cease to grow wheat they immediately begin to compete with dairy farming and other agricultural trades. In the same way if wheat only or barley only is assisted we tend to get an increased production of that particular cereal, because naturally farmers are inclined to grow the crop which gets the most assistance. But supposing we link up the guaranteed price for wheat with a tax on malting barley; in that case we should be assisting two main cereal crops.
Let us consider also, as an alternative to a guarantee, the imposition of a tariff. Does anybody believe that it is possible in this country, which imports so much wheat, to put on a tariff instead of giving a guarantee of £1 a quarter? I do not think it is. I admit that it is possible to put a tariff on wheat which might not affect the price of bread, but probably that would be so small that it would not be sufficient to assure the farmer a good price for his home-grown wheat. We could, also, link up a small tariff with a guarantee; but that, I understand, is not at the moment before the country. In addition to that there is the question of licensing, and we also propose to subsidise oats. There is also the quota, and there we have a method of helping production in another way at practically no expense, and of course we should link up that question with our Empire trade. I hope we shall have a speech to-night on this question from the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut. -Colonel Ruggles-Brise) who thoroughly understands this problem.
There are other means of assisting. There is the important question of assisting meat production. I am glad to see here to-night the representative of the War Office, because I wish to urge upon him the importance of purchasing English meat for the Army, which is advocated by most hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. It would be

1411
a very great help to British agriculturists if the £1,000,000 per annum spent on meat went to them instead of to the meat producers in the Dominions. There is the question of poultry. The more you increase poultry production the better it is for wheat and cereal production in this country. During the last two or three years we have been much interested in the Merchandise Marks Act, and the scheme for grading eggs. Both those Measures were passed by a Conservative Government, and we all know how much poultry production has increased since they were passed. We ought to assist the production of as many agricultural products as possible, because if you help one particular product, as has been the policy in the past, the effort becomes too expensive, but, if production is linked up in the way I have suggested by licensing and tariffs, you immediately get a workable scheme which is not so expensive to the taxpayers, and leads to increased production and consequently to increased employment upon the land.
I hope that we shall have the assistance of hon. Members opposite. I think they will find it very difficult to vote against this Motion. Many important bodies connected with agriculture have declared themselves definitely in favour of the stabilisation of prices. The Central Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution supporting this policy. I have been taking some interest in the election addresses of hon. Members opposite, and I find that the hon. Member for White-haven (Mr. Price) has declared himself in favour of the policy of stabilising prices. Other hon. Members have made similar declarations, and we are still waiting for legislation to be introduced by the Government in fulfilment of those pledges.
The late Minister of Agriculture has declared himself in favour of stabilising the prices of farm produce, and the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor) has also stated that he is in favour of stabilising prices. It is rather ominous that the present Minister of Agriculture did not insert in his election address any mention of the stabilisation of prices. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not present, as I should have very much liked to have questioned him as to whether the Govern-
1412
ment proposed to throw over all the promises which were so lavishly given at the last election. I would like to know the particular legislation announced in the King's Speech which is going to carry out those pledges in regard to the stabilisation of prices. I have studied with great care the Bills which have been brought forward this Session, and I have not been able to discover any signs that the Government are going to deal with this important question. I think a very good solution is to be found in the remedy suggested in the Motion which we are now discussing, and that is why I have seconded it.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The House is very much indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) for bringing this Motion before the House. The hon. and learned Baronet is not only a farmer of long experience, but he has studied agricultural questions from many aspects, and he has always something important to say on the subject. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman made his observations in such a gloomy frame of mind, for it sounded as though we were attending a funeral. His speech, as well as the wording of the Motion, very much overstates the gloominess of the agricultural position. I do not for a moment agree that agriculture is in so desperate a position that absolutely new remedies must be applied at once by the Government if agriculture is to be saved from extinction. I recognise, as everyone must who knows anything about agriculture, how very greatly depressed certain districts are in this country—the wheat-growing districts; but they are not the main part of the country—
Sir H. CAUTLEY: They are a vital part.
Mr. JONES: They are not the greatest part, and I am afraid that, unless agriculture can flourish in this country without a great deal of wheat growing, the future of agriculture is indeed hopeless. This decline in wheat growing in this country is inevitable. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend thinks that we in this country can grow wheat against the great spaces of the world? How can we, in this little country, with our small acreage, possibly compete in the growing of wheat with the

1413
great spaces of Canada, the United States of America, and the Argentine? Have we not to acquiesce in the fact that a change has come over the world, and that it is quite impossible for us in this country to compete in the matter of wheat growing with those countries. We have to face that fact, as Denmark has faced it. [Interruption.] Fifty years ago, Denmark was very much in the condition in which we are in this country to-day. It faced the situation, and faced it successfully, by methods by which the farmers of this country will have in their turn to face the problem. There are other people in the farming world to-day besides wheat growers who are suffering severely from present conditions, following the War conditions.
These people, unfortunately for themselves, bought their land from landowners who were wise enough to sell it, who saw that they were not likely to get such prices again, and who, therefore, were ready to sell. I do not criticise or blame them; I think they acted wisely. The farmers who cleared out of farming in 1920 and 1921 with their war profits—and farmers made war profits like other people—and the landowners who sold their land at high values, to which it was pitched up immediately after the War, were wise men in their generation. The men who bought were less wise, and very soon they began to suffer, as a man who has bought at the top of the market always suffers when prices begin to fall; and many of our farmers in this country who are depressed to-day have lost their capital because they put it into the land. They borrowed to buy their land; and ever since then they have been short of capital for carrying on their farming, and, naturally, they are suffering. They have a real grievance against the Government of that day, and some of them, I think, against this House itself, because very many of them bought on faith in the Corn Production Act. They were not only promised a subsidy, but legislation was passed to give it, and in the end, to put it plainly, they were deceived, they were taken in. They bought on the faith of legislation, on the faith of promises which were broken very soon afterwards, and they have been left without a remedy. They are short of capital, and the result is, of course, that their industry is necessarily depressed.
1414
When, however, I make these admissions, I do not admit that the farmers of this country are mostly insolvent, as the Resolution says. A good many of them are short, and one hears stories about what the banks could reveal if only they would tell you, about how much the farmers are overdrawn, and about the difficulties in which they are. There is a great deal of truth in that. Of course, the great difficulty is—and here I entirely agree with hon. Members above the Gangway—that British agriculture for a very long time has been sadly under-capitalised. It is under-capitalised for two reasons. The landowners are being impoverished, and there is a transfer of wealth. A landowner receiving merely rents is no longer a very rich man. Landowning in this country is really becoming the luxury of the rich man. If any hon. Member having any savings is rash enough to buy land, he will find that the return he will get will be a great deal less than if he had left his money in the bank on deposit. It does not pay a man to buy land as an investment to bring him in income. Men who are merely in receipt of rent from agricultural land are, as compared with what they were in past years, an impoverished class. I do not think that that can be disputed by anyone who knows the facts.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: It was the Liberals who did that.
Mr. JONES: Liberals and Conservatives are alike to blame, as will be seen by anyone who examines the records of our legislation. It may be that Sir William Harcourt began it, but Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer followed, and I do not think that all the blame can be put upon our party. I am not blaming anyone, but am merely trying to face the facts of the situation. The landowners are poorer than they were, and cannot afford to put into the farms the capital which they used to put in. Again, the farmers, partly for the reason I have given, have not enough capital. That is partly their own fault—
Sir H. CAUTLEY: It is not their fault if they cannot grow wheat at 26s. a quarter.
Mr. JONES: I have already said that I do not think that wheat can be grown at a profit in this country, except in cases where there are peculiar advantages and which are an exception to the general rule. But farmers are a very sanguine class. In all my experience—and I have had a great deal of experience of letting land to farmers—I do not think I have ever met a farmer who did not want to take more land. The farmer always believes in land, and thinks he can do with it, and my difficulty in letting land to farmers has always been to get them to take farms which are really within their capacity. They are always applying for farms for which they have not sufficient capital. They have a certain nest-egg of their own, they have an uncle from whom they have expectations, they have a little overdraft at the bank, and their eagerness to take more land than they can really properly farm is one of the reasons for the difficulties in which farmers find themselves.
There is no greater obstacle to farming than the man who does not know where to turn for a £5 note. He has to sell stock and stuff when he does not want to sell it; he cannot buy when he sees an advantageous bargain; he is in perpetual difficulties if he is farming with insufficient capital. Our farms in this country, both on the landlord's side and on the tenant's side, are under capitalised, and that is the difficulty but, when all is said and done, farmers are very ready to take more land, except perhaps in the wheat-growing districts, where the depression is so exceedingly great. In the counties which I know best, in Cumberland, in North Yorkshire, and in Cornwall, if any farm becomes vacant, there is more than one applicant anxious to take it, and I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend who moved this Motion whether things are not looking up a bit? He has had 21 years' experience. Has he looked at his balance sheet for this last year? [Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend keeps careful accounts.
My own experience is that things are improving a bit. I know even of one or two home farms—and these are not usually paying concerns—which are
1416
actually showing a profit. The fact is that things are not as black as they were, and, in any case, there is no difficulty, in the parts of the country of which I have spoken, in letting farms, and letting them at rents not lower than they were let at last year. I quite admit that the De-rating Act, which was passed by hon. Members above the Gangway, enters into the letting of farms to-day. There is no escaping the fact that the rating relief given to farmers has passed, when farms have changed hands, into the pockets of the landlords. That cannot be helped. The farmer knows well what rent was paid by the last tenant and, the conditions being the same, he can pay more rent if he has not got to pay rates. It always seems to me the inevitable result of all the rating relief that has been given. [Interruption.] I am speaking really of what I know, and the passing of the De-rating Act has tremendously relieved the difficulty of letting farms.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: During the past year agents have had far more farms on their hands than there were two years ago.
Mr. JONES: I quite agree, if the landlord cannot let his farm. In certain districts large arable farms are very difficult to let now, but, with the ordinary mixed farm in the counties of which I have been speaking, that difficulty does not arise at present. The problem ceases to be so black when you look at these other forms of farming. The stockbreeders are doing well. This cheap corn is of very great advantage to those who have to feed stock. No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the circular issued to farmers in certain counties asking how many of them were advantaged by the low price of corn and how many disadvantaged—how many of them bought more than they sold or sold more than they bought? In one district that I know of 95 per cent, said they bought more than they sold, and, therefore, the cheapness of corn was an advantage to their farming, and that is why the hon. and learned Gentleman's balance-sheet has improved in the last 12 months—I am sure it has. Again, it is a great advantage to poultry farmers to get cheap agri-

1417
cultural produce. Vegetable growers have not been doing so badly, and dairy farmers are advantaged.
The truth is that the picture drawn is far too gloomy unless you fix your eyes exclusively on certain areas in the country or on the corn-grower. I remember 1879 very well. I remember the slump in rents. They were reduced 15, 20, 25 and 30 per cent., and finally came down to more reasonable levels. Farming was very bad in those counties in 1902. I can remember when the price of wool came down 2½d. a lb. It is four times that now and it has been much higher.
Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: Fivepence half-penny.
Mr. JONES: It has come dawn, but it is very far from the old level of 1902. The attitude of the party above the Gangway surprises me. They still have the audacity, at public meetings and in this House and in their programmes of legislation, to promise guaranteed prices and subsidies to the farmer after the experience of 1920. You not only promised; you legislated. The House passed a law promising it to the farmers and broke the promise within nine months. After that, do you really think even the Farmers' Union will believe you when you promise subsidies or guaranteed prices?
Sir J. LAMB: If the Liberal party have nothing to do with it, they will.
Mr. JONES: It was the Coalition Government that did it. I do not really wonder that you deceived the farmer, having made such a promise. You were bound to deceive him. But I wonder that hon. Members above the Gangway have not learnt the lesson. This is a country where most of the people live in towns. I suppose nine out of 10 of our population are now urban people. They will never pass legislation for any length of time, they will never endure for long that nine-tenths of the population should have its food artificially made dear—[interruption]—I will put it this way. They will not submit to be taxed to pay a subsidy to the one-tenth. When difficulties come, your guarantee, even if it is in the form of legislation, is bound to break down. It broke down in 1920,
1418
when there was perfect good faith in the promise. You meant to do it and you passed the Bill, but you had to undo the work you had done, simply because it was going contrary to the facts of the case. The town population will never submit to this taxation, which will express itself in increased prices for food, for the benefit of the farmers or of the country districts. I beseech hon. Members above the Gangway to seek some more plausible remedy for the evils of those districts which are, I admit, suffering, than that which they have put in this Motion for guaranteed prices. I agree as to the wide gap between the cost of production and the sale price of produce. There you are really touching the spot. There is a tremendous gap between the price that the farmer receives and that which the unfortunate consumer has to pay. You have only to look at the low price of wheat to-day, yet we have a 7d. loaf given us as a great boon. It ought to be much lower than that if the price were properly passed on to the consumer.
I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke slightingly of the marketing efforts of the Government, because there the real solution lies. We are sadly behind other countries in the matter of marketing. Think of what Denmark has done for itself in the way of disposing of milk products. Denmark is studded all over with creameries and factories for dealing with surplus milk. Then consider the bareness of our countryside. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is contented with the farmer's methods of marketing. He says that he can do his own marketing. I have no doubt he can, but I can assure him that my poor farmers in Cumberland do not know how to market their stuff. They do it extravagantly. They will not combine. They will not help each other. They distrust each other.
There is a tremendous gap between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays, and I congratulate the Government on trying to deal with that problem and reaching a solution of our difficulties. That carries with it standardising. Again, I speak as a practical farmer. If you ask for Danish or New Zealand butter you get it, and you know what you are getting, and the secret of the success of Denmark in sending its

1419
agricultural produce into this country is that they really treat it with far more skill in the matter of marketing and standardising than our British farmers have learnt to do. There are first-rate farmers in this country, probably the best in the world, but there are also some very inferior farmers, but, in spite of the great gap between the two prices, there is no intermediate body that really does the standardising and the marketing and the securing to the consumer that he shall get the article he asks for when he goes into a shop to buy it. There, I think, lies some hope for the industry. Compared with other trades, I suggest that, after all, the farmer is by no means the worst off in this country. I know something of the coal trade, which is in a far worse condition than agriculture.
Sir J. LAMB: That is protected.
Mr. JONES: I remember a great deal of what has been done, and I am afraid that the coal trade is not going to derive very much benefit from it. But whatever value that argument has in the eyes of the hon. Member, he is welcome to it. The cotton trade is worse off, and the shipping trade is in greater difficulties than agriculture. I console myself with the fact that the situation is not really getting worse but that, on the contrary, there is a somewhat upward trend which, I hope, is going to continue. On the question of dumping, of which hon. Members complain, that is competition of the type we have all over the world. The situation is a world situation, not a national one. The agricultural interests of the world are making practically the same complaints as are being made in this country. There may be slight variations. Hon. Members will remember that at the Economic Conference at Geneva, in 1927, the representatives of all the nations considered carefully the situation of agriculture. They had no difficulty in reaching a common opinion that everywhere they were suffering, partly because other trades were profiting at their expense, and partly because of other reasons.
My conviction is that it is not by any such remedies as are here proposed that we shall find the solution of these diffi-
1420
culties. I do not think that any single nation is going to find a solution. It can be done only in a peaceful way by conferring with other nations, possibly through the League of Nations, or, at any rate, by international action with the object of preventing these unfriendly onslaughts upon the productive trades such as agriculture and other trades. The action of any one country to-day has such tremendous reactions in every other country, that I am confident we shall have to seek an international solution before we can reach a satisfactory position. Nations cannot live alone any more than individuals. We shall not find a national solution of the agricultural difficulties which still beset us, but I believe that it is possible through conference with other nations, through the League of Nations, to find an international solution.
9.0 p.m.
The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Attlee): I should like to explain to the House that I am deputising for the Minister of Agriculture, who would have liked very much to have been present at this debate but is indisposed this evening. I will state briefly the attitude which the Government take towards this Motion. I do not think that anybody who contemplates the condition of agriculture to-day can do other than sympathise with a great deal of this Motion and of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder. Perhaps there was a little too much inspissated gloom in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it, but, generally speaking, we all know that there is this serious position. The Motion, to my mind, is rather a friendly Motion from the point of view of the Government, because in at least two points the hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps unconsciously, lends his support on Government Measures which have been introduced. He specially points out, for instance, that family farms and small-holdings are, apparently, in a better position than other farms, and we shall, no doubt, have an opportunity of observing his enthusiasm for that part of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill upstairs in the course of the next few weeks. He also emphasised the wide gap between the cost of production and selling prices. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif

1421
Jones) saw at once, that leads to a consideration of marketing, and I shall have a word to say upon that point directly.
Perhaps the most important point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne made was that this, after all, is an international problem. It is no good looking at the question of the price of agricultural products produced in this country without looking at the broad, general question of the utter confusion there is in prices of different products in the world to-day. We are in a condition in which the prices of primary products are depressed all the world over. We know that that is due to world causes. We know that that is, perhaps, the most outstanding instance of the utter failure of the present capitalist system, in which hon. Gentlemen opposite believe, properly to regulate the economic affairs of the world. The broad fact is that we have increased enormously our powers of production of food, and we cannot get it consumed. That is a question of bad economic organisation, and the remedy is not economic nationalism but economic co-operation. To do him justice, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite recognised that the reason that we cannot accept this Motion as it stands is precisely because we are precluded from following the chief remedy put forward by him through the action of his own Government.
To deal with the general points that have been made, there is, first of all, the question of cereal cultivation. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that a certain amount of cereal cultivation is necessary to the agricultural economy in this country. I also agree that we cannot look with indifference upon the entire upsetting of the economics of the countryside dependent upon cereal cultivation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated at the end of last Session that he intended to deal with this matter, and that we recognise the need for dealing with cereal cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we had to wait until this matter had been discussed by the Imperial Conference, which has only just ended, and that it takes considerable time to work out a calculation upon what occurred there. I am not in a position to-night to make any other statement in regard to that sub-
1422
ject than that which has already been made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I can only say that it is receiving the attention of the Government and that we expect a decision very shortly.
Cereal cultivation is important in agricultural economics, but in actual fact it does not represent so large a proportion of the agricultural activities of this country as one would sometimes imagine from the speeches that are made. A further point made by the right hon. Member below the Gangway was that these matters are not quite so simple as they appear. The experience of right hon. and hon. Members who have been in office will bear me out in what I am about to say. You may get a charming proposal, for instance, in regard to malting barley, and to hon. Members on the back benches it may seem a simple proposition for right hon. Members on the Front Bench to bring in a Bill. I think the party opposite promised a tax on malting barley in 1924, but somehow or other there was some difficulty in bringing it in. The same thing applies when you come to consider the general question of the inter-relations of different agricultural activities. The matter is not quite so simple. Very often the imports that are so much deplored by one section of the agricultural world are the basis of the success of another section. Therefore, you have to hold some kind of balance. You have to form some idea of what is going to be the future balance in the agricultural activities of the country, or you may step rashly in and harass the very kind of agriculture that you ought to develop.
The real trouble about the Motion is, however admirable its sentiments may be, that the proposals are inadequate to deal with the evils from which agriculture is suffering. I am not going to attack the British farmer as being an extraordinarily incompetent person. There are extraordinarily able farmers and there are some very incompetent ones. Some farmers will tell you about other farmers being incompetent, but I do not suggest that they are more incompetent than people in many other industries. The fact is that agriculture, like so many other industries, needs organization. The

1423
outstanding point is the gap between wholesale and retail prices. I do not say this by way of condemnation of the farmer, but it is the fact that he has failed to get the full value that he ought to get in relation to what the consumer has to pay. A very notable feature about our economic activities in the past six years has been the ever-widening gap between what the consumer has to pay and what the producer gets. I gave the figures the other day to the House showing the enormous increase in persons occupied in the middle stages of industry, and also the great lag between the fall in wholesale prices and the fall in retail prices.
It is impossible to ignore all the mass of evidence that the producer of agricultural produce in this country does not, get the price that he might get, having regard to what the consumer pays. I suppose we have all read the Linlithgow Report. Everybody knows from experience the widely different range of prices. One day I bought apples at 8d. a lb., which seemed an enormous price, and another day I found apples just like them, in a village 12 miles away, ticketed at 1d. per lb. Everybody knows that these very low prices for certain agricultural products are not primarily due to foreign importation. The hon. Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) mentioned potatoes. Potato prices have gone far below anything caused by foreign importation. The fall has been caused by the failure amongst the producers themselves to deal with surplus production. We may have the same position in regard to milk. What is wanted is organisation amongst the producers.
One of the strongest reasons against any of these suggested forms of Protection is that they will mean handing over whatever subsidies or protection we give into the pockets of the middlemen. That is one answer, but there is a further answer. We cannot carry out the suggestion in the latter part of the Motion with regard to prohibition and licensing, without tearing up a good many international agreements. There are two main agreements to which I would refer. The first is the Prohibition Convention. That was an agreement made by our predecessors and ratified by ourselves when we came into office. It was de-
1424
signed to get rid by Convention of an endless series of prohibitions of one sort or another. We cannot get rid of that. That Convention has been made and it lasts until 1931. If you do want, to get rid of it you must remember that prohibitions are a game that two people can play at. You have to weigh the disadvantages of not being able to prohibit the entry of some particular agricultural product against the disadvantage of another country prohibiting the import of certain goods from this country.
We also heard a great deal of noise about the importation of agricultural products from Germany. There, again, we are tied by a commercial treaty with Germany, negotiated by one of the faithful, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and, I believe, advantageously to us. You may object to the importation of German oats, but you have to consider whether the price you are going to pay for prohibiting the importation of German oats is not going to hit you when you come to the question of the whole volume of our German trade, and the best advice that we have is that it is not worth while. That is why the suggested remedies do not carry us any part of the way. In the first place, they are extraordinarily difficult, because they mean tearing up various Conventions. Secondly, without reorganisation of the system of marketing, there is very little likelihood that they are going to do any permanent good. I think that a great deal more might have been done perhaps in the last five years with regard to marketing proposals. A good deal of reorganisation might have been done. We know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite were precluded by their pledges from introducing any of their pet nostrums, but that did not prevent them from dealing with those things that were waiting to be dealt with, and one of those things was the organisation of the marketing side of the agricultural industry.
I say at once that what has hindered the proper development of agriculture, or rather legislation in regard to agriculture, has been the pressure of vested interests. Hon. Members opposite have not been strong enough to overcome the vested interests of the middlemen or even

1425
of the market authorities. They have failed because of obsolete conditions, and as to where and how far their policy of laissez faire should be applied. Everyone tends to apply the principle of laissez faire up to the particular economic point at which it best suits them, but they are often misled. The hon. and learned Member who has moved the Motion was I thought misled in his view of the great advantage of having a market close at hand to which he could go and sell his produce. All of the evidence shows that it is because we have this market right at our doors that we have not developed the standardisation and marketing system of Denmark and other countries. They have to send their exports to this country and are forced to organise. It is just because we have this market at our very doors that there is this difficulty of organisation. The difficulty is that one man may break away from the organisation in order to make a bargain which he feels will be very advantageous—
Sir H. CAUTLEY: There is no need. In this country we have a market at hand.
Mr. ATTLEE: There is that need. Everyone who has studied the question of hops will know that there was a breakaway by a few people—
Sir J. LAMB: The slack market in America was largely responsible for that.
Mr. ATTLEE: That is not my recollection. Again and again I have heard it from hon. Members of this House who are not members of the Labour party that the difficulty is that you have these breakaways by people who are individualistic, who seek their own temporary interests rather than the general interests of the industry. That is where you will have to take this matter in hand and with a clear conception as to your view of the future economic life of this community. I am not a devotee of the policy of laissez faire but I am a devotee of the regulation of the economic life of this community. I believe that you have to have a certain balance as between industry and agriculture. You have to take steps to see that a proper reward is obtained by the people who work in agriculture as in other indus-
1426
tries. That means regulation. We believe in regulation by the industry itself, that is the point of view we are putting forward. We believe in getting people on to the land, and so does the hon. and learned Member. The Government accept much that has been said generally with regard to agriculture in the course of this debate. They are not quite so mournful as the hon. and learned Member, but when you look at the effective parts of this Motion and the steps that are recommended those steps are utterly impracticable, first owing to the legislation which has already been passed and the agreements which have been made, by which we are bound, and, in the second place, without an internal organisation of the marketing side of the industry they will be totally ineffective. The Government cannot accept this Motion.
Mr. GUINNESS: We all very much regret the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and we hope his indisposition will be very temporary. The speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy has been very interesting but, naturally, we would have preferred to speak face to face with the responsible Minister for agriculture. The hon. Member has delivered on behalf of the Government a very chilling message. Nothing is to be done, no hope is held out of any effective action to help the cereal grower.
Mr. ATTLEE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in when I commenced my speech but I pointed out that I was not prepared at the moment to say what Measures would be introduced but that our pledge at the end of last Session still remains good. The matter is receiving the attention of the Government and we expect a decision shortly.
Mr. GUINNESS: We know what a day or two means. When the Government came in we were told that they were waiting eagerly for an opportunity to disclose their policy on agriculture, but month after month went by and a year passed before their policy was unfolded; and when it was unfolded there was nothing in it for the cereal grower. The Chancellor of the Duchy has told us that much of our trouble is due to the utter confusion of prices due to the disorderly markets in the countries of the world, and he attributes much of that

1427
blame to the system of capitalism which in theory at least is so hateful to hon. Members opposite. Are we to wait for the abolition of capitalism not only in this country but throughout the world, in all these disorderly markets, before the struggling arable grower of this country is to have any measure of relief. There is no sign that other producing countries are giving up the system of capitalism which is responsible for our trouble. In fact, they appear to be making things rapidly worse. We had details given us this afternoon as to the action recently taken by other great producing countries to protect their own markets, to regulate the consumption of agricultural products by their own people while pouring their surplus into the one rich unprotected market of the world at a shattering cost to our own producers. Nothing is to be done, apparently, to meet this increasing pressure.
Socialist experiments of all kinds, including alterations in the system of land tenure, are absolutely of no value whatever in order to deal with the urgent problem of the arable farmer. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) minimised the gravity of the position. He is fortunate. His lot has been cast in pleasant places, where the farmers are happy and contended, paying good rents and do not depend on arable crops. But in the opinion of farmers themselves that position is rather unstable. The conference which met at the beginning of this year representing all the elements in the agricultural industry had no doubts as to the importance of re-establishing the position of the cereal grower. Not only for its direct value but because of its indirect importance to other lines of agricultural production. Much as we were interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, we are bound to attach great weight to the advice of that Conference, and its unanimous opinion that the key to the position was the re-establishment of cereal growing. Those of us who are in touch with districts where there are other sides of agriculture, perhaps of prior importance to cereal growing, know how very precarious is the present state of the market. A small increase of production in those few sides of the agricultural industry which have inspired the right hon. Gentleman to de-
1428
liver his cheering message, and their marketing position would be shattered.
Really, it is surprising to hear from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite the view that the position is not desperate, and that it can be helped by methods of marketing, such as have been proposed. The cereal grower is in a very critical state, and it has been admitted by the Government, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of the summer sittings. We have been told that the Government will undertake whatever practical steps can be devised to put cereal growing on an economic foundation. There has been enough time for the Government to make up their minds. There has been one inquiry after another into this subject since the War and a unanimous concensus of opinion that the only hope is by the State giving artificial assistance, and taking steps to enable the cereal farmer to balance his accounts.
The Conservative party in their term of office did what was in their power, and within their pledges, to implement that object. They lightened the burdens, and the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has told us what a great assistance that has been. He told us that in the case of new lettings the landlord can get a better rent, but, as he knows well, that only applies to new lettings. The landlord cannot put up the rent to a sitting tenant, and it is laid down in the Act that in the case of any arbitration to which any tenant is entitled on his rent, even of a new letting, the arbitrator must not take into account any increased power to pay rent due to de-rating. I think, whatever may be the value of the right hon. Gentleman's experience, it is rather difficult to explain away that very effective method of ensuring that the benefit of de-rating went to the tenant. We also help by increasing the farmers' receipts in the form of the very valuable crop of sugar-beet which has been of very great assistance in some areas in which the industry is very depressed. That is not enough. The sugar-beet condition is not too hopeful. I should not be in order in dealing with that to-night, because it is not within the terms of the Motion, but unless the Government come to the rescue, it looks as if, owing to the tremendous drop in the prices received by the factories for their manufactured products, it will not

1429
be possible for the farmer to receive those contract prices upon which he has hitherto relied for the very profitable crop which he has been glad to grow.
There is an overwhelming need for a stabilisation of cereal prices. We believe that the only satisfactory method is by means of a guarantee of what is really the most important crop—again in the opinion of this unanimous conference—namely, the wheat crop. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway reminded us of how the previous system of guarantees broke down. There is no proposal to guarantee anything but the price of wheat.
Mr. LEIF JONES: I was referring to the system in 1920.
Mr. GUINNESS: I quite agree. I am distinguishing between the proposal today and the system to which he refers which broke down under the slump of prices in 1921. That proposal included oats, and it was the inclusion of oats which made the loss more than the country could bear. The Government will not be drawing so much from their resources owing to the fall in the sugar-beet subsidy and what more proper use could they put it to than by helping the arable farmer? The Government seem very well off, for they are prepared to subsidise the production of foreign opera. Surely there is a greater need for subsidising the home production of wheat? The right hon. Gentleman says they have to consider how they are going to meet this problem. It has been thrashed out over and over again and the only alternative to our proposal which has, apparently, been accepted conditionally by hon. Members opposite, is that of the import board. An import board is not going to help the arable farmer unless right hon. Gentlemen opposite swallow all their words about food taxes and dear food. An import hoard can only help the arable farmer if it raises prices by putting the burden on to the consumer. Therefore, there is really no possible way out of the difficulty in that direction unless hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to show up the absolute insincerity of all that they have said about dear food.
The Liberals have spoken within the past week with two voices, but I believe that the opinion, as far as I can judge
1430
it, is that where dumping is really shown, regulation would be justified. I cannot see what difficulty hon. Members opposite would have about such regulations. There is nothing in the objection that there are commercial treaties. After all, other countries are bound by commercial treaties, and, as we were told this afternoon, in the case of eight or ten countries, there is regulation of the consumption of imported supplies by means of quotas and other expedients of the like kind.
Mr. ATTLEE: I did not suggest the quota as a reason, but was referring to prohibition and licensing of imports.
Mr. GUINNESS: I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. Then, that means he quite agrees that there is nothing in the treaty difficulty to interfere with the guaranteed price for wheat? The treaties, I understand, are merely an obstacle in the way of dealing with subsidiary agricultural products.
Mr. ATTLEE: It is a question of method. There are certain methods outside the conventions. One of these is the import board, where you make a State monopoly. I was dealing with specific proposals with regard to prohibitions and licences, which are clearly forbidden.
Mr. GUINNESS: There is nothing in the commercial treaties to prevent regulation by means of import duties in the case of these subsidiary industries, provided you do not discriminate between one nation and another. If those treaties do tie our hands in dealing with dumping, with disastrous result in causing gluts in our market, it is perfectly easy for this country to denounce those treaties. I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman has been very disappointing. He has admitted the urgent need for treatment of the arable problem, but we are left with the helpless futility in the Government's programme of expedients, which are of no possible assistance to the farmer in his present urgent need.
Mr. HOPKIN: No one can claim that agriculture, particularly during the past week, has not had the spotlight on it the whole of the time. Last week we debated two agricultural topics. The Government brought in its Agriculture

1431
(Utilisation) Bill and its Marketing Bill, this afternoon we have had a further debate on the dumping of cereals, and now we have the present debate. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not go further in this Resolution. With much of it personally I agree. I agree with the first part in which the hon. and learned Gentleman says that agriculture is in a bad way, though I would not paint the colours quite so deeply. I agree that there is need for regulation in certain commodities, but I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says that a good deal of the difficulties in agriculture is due to the legislation of this House. I think it is common ground that agriculture is the most important industry in this country. The fact that we have £1,500,000,000 of capital in the industry, the fact that agricultural produce is sold for £220,000,000, and the fact that agriculture pays in rents £150,000,000 to £200,000,000, show that agriculture is the basic industry of the country. Therefore we cannot view the industry's decline with anything but the greatest alarm.
Much has been said about the percentage of the growth of wheat in this country. I represent Carmarthenshire, a county that produces, I believe, more milk per acre than any other county in the country. In Carmarthenshire we have 9 per cent. arable land and 61 per cent. permanent pasture. I would do almost anything to keep that 9 per cent. Why? Because in every other part of the country, in the vale of Glamorgan, in Somersetshire, in East Anglia, every farmer is putting down arable land to grass, with the result that in all parts of the country we are getting a glut of milk. Although this year the dairy farmer has done fairly well, next year he is to receive 6d. a gallon for his milk, and I think that Members in all parts of the House will agree that a farmer cannot produce milk profitably at 6d. a gallon. About three weeks ago I stood in the middle of a farm and the farmer pointed out to me four fields which he was putting down in clover. He said: "With wheat at the present price, about 26s., it does not pay to grow wheat. In two years' time I shall be able to farm this farm of 300 to 400 acres by myself with a boy and a dog."
1432
Those of us who know the countryside who were bred and born on the farm, whose fathers worked on the farm, remember perfectly well that where now there are two workers there used to be 10. I can only say that that is not the way to restore the greatness of this country. Farmers come to me in Carmarthen and say, "Your Marketing Bill is a good Bill, but even if we were to organise 100 per cent. it is not enough." I am not a farmer and I take my opinions on farming very largely from farmers themselves. If practical men tell me with a certain amount of reason, "You may organise if you will 100 per cent., but as long as you have no regulation of foreign imports the foreigner will beat you every time," that opinion is entitled to the greatest respect, particularly when these men get their living out of the industry. After all we are only theorists and they are men who make their money out of the industry.
These farmers point out to me that in the Marketing Bill there is a scheme for milk, but that the scheme must be a national one to be successful. Why? You cannot have the scheme for a county, for the county of Carmarthen for instance, because the milk from Pembroke and Cardigan would come in and spoil the price. You cannot take it for Wales or for England and Wales, because the Scotsmen would do again what they are doing now and break the price, by selling milk in Manchester at 3d. a gallon. You cannot take it for England, Wales and Scotland, but you must take it to the logical conclusion and say that somehow or other you must arrange that the foreign imports will not come in and break the price. In reply to a question I was told that the imports of powdered milk, unsweetened, last year were 250,000 cwts., and of sweetened milk 18,000 cwts. I would make this appeal to the Minister. In addition to these things there is machine skimmed milk being brought into this country, an absolute fraud on the poorest of the poor. I am told that the foreigner gets 1s. 3½d. a gallon for that stuff, which from the point of view of food content is worth less than 1d. I ask the Minister to see the Minister of Health with a view to prohibiting altogether the importation of this skimmed milk.

1433
Carmarthen is also interested in pigs, and I think that the same argument applies to pigs—that even if you were to set up a complete organisation the foreigner would beat you. We import hog products to the value of £64,000,000. One-third of that amount, or £20,000,000, goes in wages, one-third in foodstuffs and one-third in overhead costs. I am certain that the whole of that £64,000,000 worth could be produced in this country. We are told that the capital is available for this industry, but the men who have these schemes ready say that, if they were to start, the Danes would pour into this country bacon and hog products to such an extent, that the baby industry would be completely defeated. Is it possible or not to get up an import board to deal with imports from Denmark and the United States, and to see if it is not possible to regulate the amount coming into this country, with the price of the product in this country, so that, anyhow, the consumer would not pay more?
It is possible that, as regards pigs, 20 factories could be set up, and I am told that it would be quite easy, within a short time, to employ 100,000 men in this industry alone. Surely it is worth while, if necessary, to pay something for the sake of the countryside. For the sake of the advantages that we can get, we must spend a little money. It is at one with the policy of regulation to set up an import board, and we ask if it is not possible to do so. Our Marketing Bill is a good Bill and I believe in it, but the Marketing Bill, without some kind of regulation, is not going to have the wholehearted support of the farming industry, and, without the wholehearted support of the farmers, the Bill is not going to be a success. I believe that the countryman is the salt of the earth. I believe that he is the backbone of this country, and I hope that the Government will see to it by some means or other, that foreign imports will not kill him.
Mr. SAVERY: In listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) one could not help being surprised that be should have blinded himself so largely to the grave condition in which agriculture now finds itself. I think that his opinion is not generally held, and it would be a very
1434
sad thing for this country if the present Government shared his view. I am glad to know that at least the Minister of Agriculture holds a different opinion, because in introducing the Second Reading of his Land Utilisation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman made a remark with which I think everyone in the House was in full agreement, he said that it was high time that we as a nation made a considered and sustained endeavour to restore prosperity to the countryside. It is indeed high time. Reliable evidence from all parts of the country proves that the lot of the British farmer to-day is critical to the point of despair. Except in a few favoured districts, the prospect of midsummer has ended in dismal disappointment. Reference has been made to the deplorable season of 1879. I have heard many who are well able to judge say that never since that date has the condition of agriculture in this country been so acutely depressing as it is now, or the spirits of those engaged in the industry so despondent.
In such circumstances it can easily be imagined with what painful suspense agriculturists throughout the country awaited the announcement by the Government of their agricultural policy. Hope was stimulated by the sympathy, even the anxiety, displayed by the Minister of Agriculture in his conversations with representatives of the industry. In those interviews, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was so approachable and so responsive that it seemed as if he were prepared to stand in the same relation to agriculture as the cloak does to the traveller and the shield to the warrior, a comfort in the one case, a protection in the other. In spite of what has been said to-night, I feel certain that, never within living memory has agriculture stood in so much need as it does to-day of both comfort and protection. But I think that the first instalment of the Government's policy for agriculture is likely to quench any spark of hope that the Minister may have kindled. There will not be, even in that first instalment, anything to help or encourage the ordinary farmer. Instead of offering him any relief from his difficulties, it seems to offer only further coercion and control. The expression of the Government's intentions seems to me to be, in effect, a censure on present day farming. The

1435
implication all through one part of the Bill seems to be that the British farmer is not doing his work as well as it should be done and that the Government can do it better. What other meaning can be attached, for instance, to the setting up of a great agricultural corporation for the purpose of promoting and improving the development of agricultural land when at the present time there are thousands of men conscientiously and industriously engaged in that very purpose?
The development is to be achieved apparently by large-scale farming. I join in the doubts which have been expressed concerning the wisdom of any such undertaking by the State. The fact that these large farms are to be controlled and managed by such bodies as local authorities, universities and agricultural colleges, is, in my opinion, quite sufficient reason for condemning the enterprise. Gentlemen connected with those bodies may be very clever and very learned. I would not cast any reflection upon their talent. I have no doubt they may be found as clever as any farmer in knowing what to do, but I am certain that they will not be found as clever as any farmer in knowing how to do it. Experiments on this large scale have already been tried by the State in different parts of the country. The history of those attempts is a catalogue of failure.
Reference has been made two or three times to the Patrington Farm Settlement. I hope hon. Members will forgive the repetition if I also touch on that instance, and I am sure of the indulgence of the House when I mention that that experiment took place in the constituency which I represent. That settlement was developed with resources of men and material quite as powerful, I believe, as anything that the present Minister of Agriculture can call to his command. It was controlled by a very experienced and practical director, and it was manned by a very good class of vigorous and able-bodied workers. Those men were particularly keen on their job, because it was to be a profit-sharing scheme. Those men entered on that big co-operative concern without any financial outlay or responsibility. The state provided the land, the livestock, the implements, the farm buildings, and the dwellings. The general tone and the social spirit of that
1436
settlement were excellent. On the community side, the experiment was a great success; as a business proposition, it was a staggering failure. After working for 10 years on those 2,363 acres, the total loss incurred was no less than £117,321. That is an example of large-scale farming which in many of its features must, I think, be similar to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. Its failure was complete beyond question. The loss of that money has been met by the British taxpayer, and I am quite confident that the British public will not welcome any repetition of experiments so costly.
Some time ago the Prime Minister declared that his Government would not yield an inch to the demand for a subsidy in aid of agriculture. I feel inclined to think that he and his colleagues have modified that determination, because in their plan for putting thousands of unemployed workers on the land they are asking for large sums of money which are to be devoted to such purposes as working capital, maintenance allowances, training, and the purchase of stock, fertilisers, and implements. It seems to me that that is as stark and undisguised a subsidy as any bounty that was ever granted. We, on this side, would not for a moment grudge the money if there were any certainty that it would be dispensed with equity and discretion.
10.0 p.m.
Prosperity will not be restored to the countryside by the creation of a new class of crude and inexperienced agriculturists, but I believe that it might be restored, and more rapidly than people imagine, if adequate help and encouragement were given to those men who are now working hard upon the land, men who are struggling against adversity, men who know their craft and who are already wise in land instinct and the teachings of nature. Those are the surest and most reliable agents by whom the intentions of the Government for the better utilisation of the land could be carried out. So far those men have remained unrecognised in any part of the policy of the Government; No suggestion has yet been made that could help them in their difficulties or improve the conditions under which they are compelled to work. Those conditions become harder for them year by year. Has it been said that our farmers lack signs of capacity I think

1437
that any honest critics would admit at once that farmers have shown wonderful courage, and resource, and skill in adapting themselves to those altered and harsher conditions, and will it ever be forgotten that during the War the British farmer wrought almost a miracle of production, at short notice and with very inadequate means?
The ogre that faces the farmer to-day, his Giant Despair, is shaped by this fact, that in all his labour there is little or no profit. The price he can obtain does not meet the cost he must incur, and I believe that no revival in agriculture is possible until those two elements of costs and prices are delivered from their unsound position. One of the objects of this Motion is that the Government shall be urged to put those two elements as speedily as possible into a more correct relationship one to the other.
Mr. QUIBELLI think we are indebted to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) for putting down this Motion, and those of us who represent agricultural constituencies can have no complaint that our industry is not receiving some attention in this House. I was very pleased that the hon. Baronet admitted that, so far as the agricultural labourer was concerned, despite the fact that his wages are 100 per cent. more than they were pre-War, he thought those wages were sufficiently low, and indeed too low at the present time. I am sometimes surprised, though, at speeches that are delivered. I have been surprised at the speech delivered from the Front Bench below the Gangway apposite, in which it was stated that farmers had to look to something other than growing wheat and to grow something else if agriculture had to survive and, I suppose, if the farming community also had to survive.
I am one of those who cannot subscribe to that philosophy, from whatever quarter of this House it comes. I made some inquiries during the last weekend, and I found that a farm that ordinarily ought to employ from 10 to 12 men now has the farmer, his son, and one other working on it, and it is a farm of 400 acres. The farmer is told that if he cannot grow cereals and
1438
potatoes at a profit, he must grow something else. Thousands of acres are put down to grass, more milk is produced, and the consequence will be that the position of cereals in 12 months' time will be the same. In 1860, 4,000,000 more acres of land were under wheat in this country than now, while 1,300,000 agricultural labourers were employed. The position now is that considerably less than 1,000,000 are employed. If we do not face facts, facts will face us sooner or later. I would like to see agriculture employing more men rather than fewer, and I cannot understand how anyone can look on this problem with the same view that was expressed from the Liberal benches opposite without having some regard to the well-being of people who depend on agriculture for employment. The late Minister of Agriculture made a statement that rather amused me. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to look in a mirror and ask who is responsible for the position of agriculture, and there they would see who is responsible. They have had the power to alter the position of agriculture ever since I can remember. The right hon. Gentleman said that Members below the Gangway spoke with two voices. If the party which he represents spoke with only two, we should make some progress.
I am in favour of that part of the Motion that expresses support for stabilisation of prices, because unless and until we have some such method as import boards or guaranteed prices, and give to the farmer an economic price for wheat and barley, but more particularly wheat, we shall have these discussions year in and year out. Every encouragement should be given to the farmer. I know very well a farmer who is one of the best in England, and who has one of the best Friesian herds. His name is almost a household word in farming all over England. He took a poor farm and made the best of it. The land was poor, but he used every means that science can give and spent money on developing it. He made three blades of grass grow where only one had grown before. A man like that ought to be conferring some benefit on his fellow men. He grew 22 tons of carrots per acre on some of his land, and, when he had pitted them, taken them out of the pit, washed them, bagged

1439

them, taken them to the station, sent them to Manchester, and paid the commission, not a single penny was left for him. Stabilisation of prices and guaranteed prices would mean an organised market, and it would encourage the farmer to grow more and more instead of less and less. If there happen to be a dearth of potatoes in any year or the harvest is bad it is a good year for the farmer, for he makes huge prices on his products. He ought, however, to be encouraged to grow more and to make the best possible use of the land.
If we gave him stabilisation of prices and a guaranteed price at an economic level, it would encourage him to employ more effort and produce more foodstuffs, and so confer everlasting benefit on the country. We ought to encourage the best use of this native land of ours instead of allowing land to be badly farmed. The bad farmer who takes everything out of the land and gives nothing to it, and moves to another farm, is the only man who has made a penny in the last few years. In cases like that the landlord has to allow the incoming tenant to have the farm rent free for two years to enable him to get it into condition. There are several points with which we cannot agree in this Motion, but I agree that it is the duty of this House to pay more attention to the development of our native land, and to look after the interests, not only of those who are farming, but of the labourers of the countryside who depend for their livelihood on its prosperity.
Major MUIRHEAD: Whenever I listen to an agricultural debate in this House, or read an agricultural article, or study an agricultural Bill, I am tempted to ask what we really want to do; when I say "we," I use that term very widely. It is not a question of what we actually want to do immediately, but on what our ultimate and wider viewpoint is. In agricultural matters, in what we suggest and advocate, we seem to go only half way, and we only get half way because we are uncertain of what is our ultimate destination. The question of what we really want to do, and the ultimate object of our agricultural proposals, is very germane to this particular Motion. The Motion deals with the question of putting agriculture upon a more profitable and more economic basis. The question
1440
a good many people will ask is, What is the ultimate object of this Motion? Is it simply to put a little money into the pockets of those at present engaged in the industry, or has it some wider object of putting agriculture on a different basis from what it is now? There are three questions which ought to be asked in relation to British agriculture: 1, Do we want to produce more stuff; 2, Do we want to employ more people on the land; 3, Do we want to make a profit?
The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) was rather on the tack that we ought to produce more and to employ more, and to have a more profitable industry. It is all very well to say, 'and,' and "and" and "and," but supposing the answers to these three questions are contradictory, then we have to make up our mind as to their order of importance. If one of them has to be sacrificed which is it to be; or if we are to try to make an omnibus scheme, which includes a bit of each, we have to make up our minds as to what proportionate value we are going to attach to them. My own view is that, first of all, we must have the industry, generally speaking, on an economic basis, such a basis as holds out a reasonable chance of making a profit instead of a very probable chance of making a loss. That may seem a platitude, and it is a platitude, and the only reason why it is worth mentioning is that it is so often overlooked by people when they are discussing agriculture.
Let us take it that it is agreed that it is desirable that agriculture should be on some sort of a paying basis. What is to happen then? I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Brigg that we ought to aim at employing more people on our land. That is the second thing to which I definitely give my adherence. If we can devise a scheme by which we can employ more people on the land and produce at the same time the maximum profit possible, so much the better; but if the employment of more people on the land, either as labourers or as smallholders, gets in the way of making a maximum profit possible, then, I say, it is better to aim at giving more employment to people than to aim at a maximum profit. It must be plain to everybody that there comes a point at which you may be able to get a maximum profit more easily by employing fewer people

1441
than by employing many. I say the employment of many people is of more importance than a maximum profit, provided always that the industry, generally speaking, is on a paying and not a losing basis.
Agricultural economics provide one of the most difficult economic questions. The absolute depth or nature or intensity of an agricultural depression is one of the hardest things to probe. Even people connected with agriculture in this country would say that. That struck me, also, when I was travelling last year in Africa. It was very difficult to get to the bottom of how bad the agricultural depression was. The various processes of agriculture do not stand out clearly in separate compartments so to speak; they dovetail into each other. You can always tide off or push off a loss on one thing on to something else, and when you have pushed them round a sufficient number of times the actual intensity of each is lost. You may not see the way clearly, but sooner or later the bump comes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) said he thought the farmers were a very sanguine lot of people. If they are sanguine, I think it is on account of being able to push off their losses on to some other agricultural process; and by keeping the thing moving they are not able to see the full extent of the gravity of the depression which they are going through.
I would like to take up another point put by the right hon. Gentleman—the question of rates. He said that it was not a question of theory but a question of fact. I will give the right hon. Gentleman my own experience. I happen to be the owner of between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of very typical mixed land in the Midlands. During the last seven years there have been two rating reliefs for farmers, and I can assure hon. Members that my rents in those years have been consistently reduced. That is not theory but practice—painful practice on my part. However much a farmer may be able to push his losses round from one thing to another he has, sooner or later, to come to the point where he wants cash. It is all very well to say that there is a bad price for grain, and he can feed it to his cattle. That is all very well, but that pre-supposes that he is going to get
1442
a profitable price for his cattle. We have to face up to that point that somewhere or other, however many stages there may be in the cycle, the farmer has to come to the point where he will want cash.
Take the question of milk, which was dealt with in a very powerful speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin). I also happen to represent a constituency devoted almost entirely to milk production. There the cash question comes up very quickly. The cow gives the milk, it is then sold, and the farmer gets the money. That is comparatively a very simple cash operation. I should like to take up another point of his which is certainly very keenly appreciated by the dairy farmers in my constituency, and that is the effect of the collapse in the cereal districts and the flooding of the country with a lot of additional milk. I will just take an example from my own farm about the necessity of there being some point in the cycle where you get to the question of cash profit. I was talking to my own bailiff about cattle. Some of the cattle had been out into the fields and some had been brought into the sheds to be fattened. I was talking to my bailiff about this, and he said that he really thought that the cattle which were left out paid better than the cattle which were brought in. Of course I knew the reason, but I did pursue the matter for the sake of interest. I said to my bailiff, "If that is the case, why do you bring the cattle in," and he replied, "We want some manure." I asked, "What do you want manure for?" and he replied, "For the roots" I then asked, "What do you want the roots for?" and he replied, "To feed the sheep." I told him that sheep did not fetch much money, and he replied, "We must have something to manure the ground for the corn crop," and then he replied, "We shall want some money for that." That was the point in his mind where you were brought up against the necessity of getting some cash. Someone else might say, "Feed the corn to your stock," and then you begin going round and round again, and each time you go round the cycle, unless you get a cash profit at some point, you get weaker and weaker, until the whole thing breaks down.

1443
With regard to stock production, it is quite true that on a large number of fields in England you could produce a great deal more than is produced. We have found out a great deal about the value of certain types of grass in the last few years, and one could produce more, but the average farmer is prevented from producing more by the fact that he may find himself with a large amount of good stock on his hands, and may simply have to give it away because there is no certainty in the market. I am definitely in favour of a guaranteed price for wheat, but I would not, perhaps, go quite as far as some of my fellow Members on this side in that respect. I think there is a great deal in what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne. He rather threw cold water on the wheat question, and I would not go as far as that. I think that for the moment it is much too big a jump to let wheat growing in this country simply slide. I am in favour of a guaranteed price. It is not that I think it is going to bring a great deal of land under wheat cultivation again. I think that that, perhaps, would be a retrograde step. But I am in favour of such a price as will ensure to the average good farmer to-day, who grows wheat on reasonable wheat land, some sort of certainty that he will not see the profits of good farming simply go down the sink.
The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the question of blades of grass, and spoke of three growing where one used to grow before. I think that the gentleman who coined the phrase about blades of grass only thought of two; he said that the man who made two blades of grass grow where one did before was a great benefactor of the human race. That is all very well, but I think that the hon. Member, in that case, was on the production tack, whereas we have passed from the era of increased production, when everyone put their mind to increased production, to the era in which marketing is the most important thing. When the celebrated Coke of Norfolk took over his farm in the east of England, a contemporary writer said that it was a miserable place, where two rabbits struggled for every blade of grass. Coke immediately took the matter in hand and concentrated on production, which, in the eighteenth century, was the
1444
thing to do. Everybody then concentrated on better production, and Coke made a very good thing out of it. To-day, however, the outlook is altered. The situation to-day is, if I may use the analogy in regard to the consuming public, that a largely increased number of blades of grass are competing violently for the economic privilege of being eaten by a rabbit. That shows, really, that, if we concentrate too strongly on the question of increased production, we shall meet with the difficulty that increased production will, unless something is done about it, hit up against the difficulty of getting a reasonable profit for that which we produce.
The Motion before the House lays stress upon the economic side of the question, and emphasises the necessity of an economic price for what farmers produce. That goes to the basis of the whole matter. The Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, which is now before the House, tries to build the top storey before the foundation is built, but this Resolution goes to the foundation of the whole thing, which is the necessity of getting at all events some sort of economic price for our agricultural produce. The terms of the Motion and the speeches in which it was moved show that at all events we on this side of the House understand the relative position of the cart and the horse.
Mr. BLINDELL: When I first came here, some 20 months ago, one of the first things that fastened on my memory was a statement made by an hon. Member below the Gangway that for nearly two years we had never had a real discussion in the House on agriculture. Whatever else can be said to-night, I am certain that we can say for the Government of the day that they have given the House plenty of opportunity for discussing agriculture. I am well aware that this is the Motion of a private Member, but, in spite of that, during the last 18 months certainly, agriculture has been discussed almost inside out. To-night we have had an admirable discussion on various phases of the agricultural position, and the difficulties under which the industry is working.
I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make the statement that he did. I did not quite agree with some of the things he

1445
said, but he said he was in disagreement with those who said that the decline in the production of wheat was bound to continue, and that it was not in the national interest that we should worry too much about it. I was glad to hear him say that the Government take up the position that a certain amount of cereal cultivation is an absolute necessity. That is all to the good. He went on to say that, up to the moment, the Government had made certain proposals for dealing with various sections of the industry, but they have never made a statement as to how they are going to face up to the problems with which arable agriculture, as distinct from other sections, is faced.
I agree that the Minister of Agriculture has promised again and again that a statement should be made of the Government policy with regard to arable agriculture after the deliberations of the Imperial Conference had finished. They have finished, and we have to-night had another promise that the Government are considering the arable position and that in the very near future they will disclose their policy. I hope the Government will come to whatever decision they may determine upon and let the House know, so that we shall know exactly what they intend to do to restore arable agriculture.
He made another statement with which I entirely agree. He said the importation of cereals is a material advantage to certain sections of agriculture. We agree there, but we who represent arable districts find very little comfort in a statement of that sort. We want to find a solution of the difficulty. Seeing that the Government realise that wheat and cereal cultivation must continue in the interest of the industry itself and in the national interest, we want to know exactly how the Government intend to make it a paying proposition for the farmers in East Anglia to grow wheat.
I know that the Government would stress the position as between the price to the producer and that which the consumer has to pay. I agree that there is a tremendous lot to be said there, but I do not agree that there is such a tremendous gap as is sometimes made out between the wholesale and the retail prices of commodities. For instance, the Minister mentioned the Linlithgow
1446
Report and said it showed that there was this great difference between wholesale and retail prices. I believe that very same report stated that, so far as meat was concerned, the retailers were getting on the average less than a half-penny on all meat. Surely we are not going to call that an extravagant rate of profit. Such statements should only be made after mature consideration, so that no injustice is done to any section of the community in order to put agriculture on its feet again.
The Motion is good in parts and bad in parts. I should like very much to be in the position of supporting the Motion whole-heartedly, but why the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Motion should make it so cumbersome I really do not know. I listened with a good deal of interest to the speech which he made, and the whole burden of it seemed to be that he wanted to make out a really strong case as to the desperate position of the arable farmer in this country. Why did he not say it in his Motion? Why did he not call upon the Government to bring forward their policy, press it upon them and leave it there? Why burden the Motion with all sorts of little bits of trimmings which suit hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, but make it impossible for us to support it? When hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway speak of arable agriculture, they always seem to mix it up with tariffs and subsidies. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) said that they spoke with two or more voices, and they do. On this particular matter they speak with two or more voices, and some of them with three or four voices. A week or two ago, when I was in Shipley, I did not hear anything about subsidies for agriculture, and the hon. Member who represents Shipley, if he is here, will back me up when I say it. [An HON. MEMBER: "For their own industries?"] You cannot legislate piecemeal for distinctive industries. If the nation is to start tariffs and subsidies, then the industrial section of the nation ought to be told quite openly what it is intended to do, and that they will have to shoulder part of the burden. The real reason why that by-election was won was because of the definite statement made that the candidate would not tax food.[Interruption.] Yes, he made it, and

1447
I hope that the hon. Member will back it up or deny it. The statement was made that there should not be any tax placed upon food, and that the price of the food of the people should not be increased. I do not think a doctrine of that sort would go down in an agricultural Division.
Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: Did not the hon. Gentleman once advocate the prohibition of the importation of potatoes?
Mr. BLINDELL: No, I do not remember ever doing that. When I read the Motion I was at a loss to understand why the Mover was so interested in the larger farms and did not appear to take the same amount of interest in the smallholders of this country. I represent a Division which has 3,000 or 4,000 smallholders in it. The Motion specifically calls attention to the difficulties and the economic position confronting farmers other than the occupiers of family or special farms. I maintain that the smallholder is feeling the draught as badly as the larger farmer. I know that it is true to say that the farmer who is employing labour has to pay a minimum rate of wages, but it is equally true to say that the smallholder's son ought to receive an equal payment for the work he puts into the soil. Therefore, the larger farmer and the smallholder are in the same position. I do not understand why we are so anxious about the larger farmer and do not really give to the smallholder what is really his due.
Sir H. CAUTLEY: I am anxious for the smallholder as well as for the larger farmer, but the position of the smallholder technically does not arise on this Motion.
Mr. BLINDELL: I am only sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not express his concern in his speech. He did not say that he was as concerned about the smallholder as I would have liked him to have said. As far as the smallholders are concerned, I believe that the Government agree that farming can be made to pay by means of smallholdings and by family farms. In my district, undoubtedly, they are a success. The right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness), the late Minister of Agriculture, said some days ago that in Norfolk there was no demand for
1448
smallholdings. There has been an insistent demand in my Division for smallholdings for many years, a demand which cannot be satisfied. In spite of the fact that the Holland County Council have under their control over 13,000 acres of land let to smallholders at an annual rent of over £40,000, which rents are paid well, there is a waiting list in my Division of well over 500 men who are anxious to get land and to work it.
The Government need to be careful so far as the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill is concerned, in their provision of smallholdings, to see that the right type of man is put on the land. There is a danger that the Bill may be used as a partial means of solving the problem of unemployment. So far as it is going to be partially used to solve the problem of the unemployed agricultural workmen, I am heartily in sympathy with it, but I see a positive danger. If men are to be brought straight from the towns, even with six months training in a training college, put on to the land, given their equipment and left, I am afraid that there will be many failures. In my Division, a few weeks ago, I was told that under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill the Government probably have in mind the proposal that certain unemployed men should be provided with small plots of land and should enter into the bulb industry. It was said that we are importing Dutch bulbs to the tune of 90 per cent. of the consumption of bulbs, and the suggestion was made that these men should be put into that industry. I hope that tremendous care will be used in that connection, because of all the sections of agriculture where scientific knowledge is required and where the utmost care ought to be exercised in the fostering of a new industry in this country, great care is necessary so far as the bulb industry is concerned.

The Motion deals with the difference between the cost of production and the price at which the produce is sold to the consumer. When the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill was being considered in this House the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland dealt with this matter and made one or two very strong statements in regard to the great lag between the wholesale and the retail prices. He said, dealing with eggs, of which he seems to know a great deal, that one out of every 12 eggs eaten by us was eaten under the

1449
false pretence of some swindling middleman, who made a fabulous profit under the capitalistic system. Last week when speaking again on the Bill he made a statement which astonished me and which I am sure astonished other hon. Members. Dealing again with eggs he said:
"Who will venture to say that British activity, British toil, British genius and the British hen cannot supply a large part of that market"—
which is already supplied by the importation of foreign eggs—
"at prices which amount in some parts of the country to 4d. a dozen."
Being challenged on that statement, he went on to say:
"I know of parts of the country where the producer is getting 6d. a dozen for his eggs in the glut period and where those eggs have been sold retail at 2s. 3d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 1999, Vol. 244.]
Later in the same speech he referred to the question again, and this is what he said:
"if in addition we can keep going persistently and unrelentingly a propaganda of co-operation in marketing; if we can exclude the middleman, the gombeen man, the man who takes the difference between 6d. a dozen for eggs and the 1s. 6d. or 2s. 3d. a dozen which those eggs fetch in the market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 2003, Vol. 244.]
I was astounded by that statement. I thought it could not be true. I saw the Under-Secretary of State afterwards and he told me that he was referring to one specific transaction which had occurred right away in the wilds of Scotland. It is not quite fair to make a statement like that in this House. I have put questions to the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade in order to find out the exact position. I asked for the wholesale price of eggs produced in this country for the last three years and for the retail price which the consumer has had to pay. The Minister of Agriculture, in his reply, said that the average wholesale price of eggs produced in this country and imported was for first quality 2s. per dozen and for second quality 1s. 10d. per dozen. So far as retail prices were concerned the average price of eggs during last year was 2¼d. each, which is 2s. 3d. per dozen, and the average price obtained by the producer is about 2d. or 3d. per dozen less than the wholesale price. The same thing
1450
applies to imported eggs. I asked a similar question and got somewhat the same reply. I am not going to deny that there is a gap and a large gap between the price the producer gets and the price which the consumer pays, but we are not helping the producer or the consumer unless we state facts fairly and broadly in this House. I do not think, the Under-Secretary should have stated the case in that way.
Let me say a word with regard to marketing. So far as potatoes are concerned I have taken a very strong stand on this matter. I am glad the Government are looking to the marketing side of the industry. It is a side which can be improved tremendously, and I hope the Bill which is now before the House will be considerably altered so that we may have co-operation in marketing between all sections of the industry. I listened to what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) has said. He is absolutely right. There must be one scheme for the whole of the country. But when you come to potatoes a national scheme would be useless. You will have to have many schemes. What are the Government proposing to do? Are the Government going to say to the potato industry that they realise that there are very many sections in the industry, and they will give them all some share? Are they going to say to the merchant that he is an essential part in the marketing of produce, or are they going to say, as one would infer from the speeches that have been made, that they can positively do without him? If they adopt that line, they will make the biggest blunder they have ever made. They positively cannot go along that line.
The House must realise that in the marketing of any commodity, every section connected with the marketing must have fair play, and if you want co-operation, you will have to give them their share. It is useless to talk of the producer going direct to the consumer, but it would be a useful thing if the Government introduced a marketing board upon which not only producers, but merchants, retailers, consumers and the workers were all sitting, so that they might discuss the marketing of particular products, and afterwards make recommendations to the Ministry of Agricul-

1451
ture which would be for the welfare of the industry. If we proceed along the line that has been suggested, I am afraid we shall get into a worse muddle than we are to-day. The real point about which I am anxious is that we should provide for the producer an economic price, and I believe that it can be provided if we tackle marketing along the right lines. I welcome this discussion on agriculture to-night, and I am sorry I had to tell the Mover that I could not go into the Lobby with him. If he had produced a straightforward Motion I should have been glad to accompany him, but seeing that there is so much window-dressing in it and what pleases his own particular party, and so much aimed at Members who sit below the Gangway here, I am afraid that I cannot possibly do so.
Sir G. COURTHOPE: In the few minutes which remain, I should like to make one point which has not been referred to in any of the speeches to-night. The speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy reveals that he, and, presumably, the Government, entirely fail to appreciate how serious the situation is to-day. I have not time at this late hour to go into detailed figures, but the depression has been getting more and more rapid. During the last year or so the gap between cost and price has been getting greater and greater. The fall in the acreage under arable crops, which has been constantly going on for the last nine years, has now reached a very alarming figure, but the most serious feature of this fall is that, while something like 1,400,000 acres formerly under cereals are now under grass, the live stock upon that grass has been rapidly decreasing during the last three years. That is the most convincing proof you can have that the depression is not limited to one section of the industry only. It spreads right through, and, in spite of the increase of grass, you have a serious decrease in every kind of livestock—horned cattle, sheep and pigs. That was accompanied during the same nine years by a drop of 15 per cent. in the number of men employed on our farms, a falling off of 127,000 men.
What is keeping the rest of the arable acre under crops? It is not the profit that is made on wheat, barley or oats,
1452
but the sugar beet industry. It is the fact that there are nearly 350,000 acres under sugar beet maintaining, in rotation, a substantial acreage under wheat straw crops in the big arable districts I should like to tell the House very solemnly and ask hon. Members fully to appreciate what I am saying, that there is the very gravest risk that that crop, upon which the balance of the arable agriculture is now resting to-day, will be taken away because the gap between the cost and price of beet-sugar is now so great that there is no prospect whatever of the industry continuing without active Government intervention when the fall of the subsidy takes place in a few months time. The fall in the world price during the present period of three years has far exceeded the contemplated fall of the subsidy itself. Add the two together and you get a situation in which there is a definite gap to be bridged between the highest price the factory can pay and the lowest price at which the farmer can sell.
I am thinking not merely of the sugar-beet grower or the sugar factory, but of the effect it will have upon the whole range of this agricultural industry. It will remove the last prop, the last stay upon which arable agriculture is standing and staggering, and there will be a crash. That must necessarily react, as it has already begun to react, upon other branches of the industry. I implore the Government to appreciate that however necessary it is—I admit the necessity—to improve organisation of marketing and so on, this is a much bigger thing than what can be dealt with by remedies of that kind. I beg the Government to realise also that it is a thing which cannot wait. If effective steps are to be taken to maintain the agricultural industry, and the cereal production which is the pivot of that industry, those steps must be taken at once. A few months delay and it will be too late.
Question put,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is essential to the well-being of the nation that the economic position of farmers other than occupiers of family or special farms, which is so bad that a large proportion are now insolvent and will be shortly compelled to give up their farms, should be improved; and, seeing that this condition is in the main caused by the wide gap between the

1453
cost of production and the sale price of the products of the farm, accentuated in great measure by legislation of this House, it is further in its opinion imperative that steps be at once taken by providing a guaranteed price for cereals and power to regulate, prohibit, or license the imports of minor
Agricultural products in case of glut, or otherwise to improve the condition of the industry and make it possible for farmers to make a living out of the cultivation of the soil."
The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 174.

Division No. 36.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)

Muirhead, A. J.

Albery, Irving James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Fielden, E. B.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Ramsbotham, H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Remer, John R.

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Balniel, Lord

Gower, Sir Robert

Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Grace, John

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Salmon, Major I.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bevan, S. J (Holborn)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Savery, S. S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Shepperson, Sir Enest Whittome

Bracken, B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Simms, Major-General J.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belist)

Briscoe, Richard George

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Butler, R. A.

Hartington, Marquess of

Smithers, Waldron

Campbell, E. T.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Somerset, Thomas

Carver, Major W. H.

Honderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Christie, J. A.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Thomson, Sir F.

Colman, N. C. D.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquesss of

Colville, Major D. J.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Marjoribanks, Edward

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Dalkeith, Earl of

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Womersley, W. J.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Sir Henry Cautley and Lieut.-

Edmonson, Major A. J.

Morrison, W. W. (Gios., Cirencester)

Colonel Heneage.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Edmunds, J. E.

Kelly, W. T.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Foot, Isaac

Kennedy, Thomas

Alpass, J. H.

Freeman, Peter

Lang, Gordon

Ammon, Charles George

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Arnott, John

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Lathan, G.

Aske, Sir Robert

Gill, T. H.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gillett, George M.

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Barr, James

Gossling, A. G.

Lawrence, Susan

Batey, Joseph

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lawson, John James

Benson, G.

Groves, Thomas E.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Grundy, Thomas W.

Leach, W.

Birkett, W. Norman

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Bowen, J. W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Bromfield, William

Harbord, A.

Lloyd, C. Eills

Bromley, J.

Hardle, George D.

Logan, David Gilbert

Brothers, M.

Harris, Percy A.

Longbottom, A. W.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Hayday, Arthur

Longden, F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Lowth, Thomas

Burgess, F. G.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Lunn, William

Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W R. Elland)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Caine, Derwent Hall

Herriotts, J.

McElwee, A.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

McEntee, V. L.

Charleton, H. C.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, govan)

Clarke, J. S.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield

McShane, John James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

Daggar, George

John, William (Rhonda, West

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Davies, Rhye John (Westhoughton)

Johnston, Thomas

Mansfield, W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Marcus, M.

Dukes, C

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Markham, S. F.

Duncan, Charles

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Marley, J.

Ede, James Chuter

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Marshall, Fred

Mathers, George

Richards, R.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Messer, Fred

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Sorensen, R.

Middleton, G.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Mills, J. E.

Ritson, J.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Milner, Major J.

Romeril, H. G.

Sullivan, J.

Morgan Dr. H. B.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Sutton, J. E.

Morley, Ralph

Rowson, Guy

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Thurtle, Ernest

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sanders, W. S.

Tillett, Ben

Moses, J. J. H.

Sawyer, G. F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Muff, G.

Scott, James

Viant, S. P.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Scrymgeour, E.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermlinw)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sexton, James

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wellock, Wilfred

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Sherwood, G. H.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Shield, George William

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Palin, John Henry

Shillaker, J. F.

Westwood, Joseph

Paling, Wilfrid

Simmons, C. J.

White, H. G.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Sinkinson, George

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Perry, S. F.

Sitch, Charles H.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Atercliffe)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Pole, Major D. G.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Potts, John S.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Snell, Harry

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes

Question put, and agreed to.

CENSUS ACT, 1920.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the proposed Order-in-Council under Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Census Act, 1920, shall not be made."
As I am only enabled to make this Motion by reason of a ruling which you, Sir, were good enough to give on Monday last, the House may expect just a word from me in the nature of a personal explanation. Hon. Members who were in the House on Monday will remember that I complained that this draft Census Order which was laid on the Table of the House was not available for inspection by Members interested until some days afterwards, and you ruled, according to Speakers' precedents, that the time only ran from the date on which copy was available.
I think it is due, both to the officials at the Ministry of Health and to the staff of the Library of this House, that I should say a word as to the circumstances which followed the raising of that question. The reason why a copy was not available was one of those absences of mind or inadvertences on the part of an individual, which perhaps may well be passed over, but in fact the Ministry of Health are not to blame in the matter, as they did supply two copies, and the Library staff on their part are not to be blamed, because having sent one copy to the printers, they were not really responsible for the absence of the other
1456
copy. I think perhaps it is only due, in a case of this sort, that one, like myself, who has been concerned in raising this question should say that I am satisfied that no blame attaches to the staff of the Ministry of Health on the one side or to the staff of the House of Commons Library on the other side.
When the Census Act, under which this Order is moved, was passed in 1920, I was one of the few Members of the House who took a considerable part in the comparatively short debate on that Act. On that occasion, we found it our duty—I am bound to say, with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Agriculture, and was in those days Minister of ealth—to protect the people of this country against certain inadvisable inquiries in this Census, and as a result of that, I took more than usual interest in the draft Census Order which is now proposed. I raise this point now on the ground of the need for economy at the present time. The taking of a Census in this country is a very expensive matter. It may be—I am not at all sure that it is not—expense which is more than justified, but in view of the undoubted heavy expenditure which a Census involves, I do not think that this House ought to allow the Order to be passed without considering for a moment what the expense is, and whether the expense is justified. I have examined the terms of the Order most carefully to see whether there is anything objectionable in the questions which are asked, from the point of view of the arguments which

1457
were used when the Act was passed in 1920. I readily admit that, so far as these questions are concerned, I have no complaint to make.
I would therefore ask that the Government will merely deal with the question of expense. The House ought to be satisfied, before they allow this Order to go through, that there is real justification for the expense for taking the Census in 1931. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will take the House into her confidence in regard to what the expense will be. If the House appears to be satisfied, and if I am satisfied personally, that she makes out a good case for this expenditure, I shall not desire to press the Prayer, but in order to give her an opportunity of giving the House this information I beg formally to move.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
Mr. ALPASS: In regard to the people who will be employed in making the Census, I have been requested by several of the unemployed men in my city to make representations to the Ministry that they should do all that can be done to get those who are responsible for employing the persons who will take the Census to see that the work is distributed among unemployed people as much as possible. I believe this to be a practical suggestion, because I have been informed by the manager of the local Employment Exchange that he is prepared to supervise the training of very large numbers of men who, in his opinion, would be fully qualified to carry out the work. Here is an opening where unemployed men might be given useful productive employment. The practice has grown up of employing persons who are in regular employment in clerical offices. I hope that the Minister, in her reply, will be able to give me some satisfaction on this point.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I wish to say a few words, first on the subject of the last Order. The point that such Orders should always be available to hon. Members is an excessively important one, and I may say that the Minister of Health and myself most heartily associate ourselves with the spirit of the Orders made by you, Sir, and your predecessors. It is a very
1458
important thing indeed that private Members should have a full opportunity of seeing the Orders; and I may say also that watch-dogs perform a very useful function. At the Ministry of Health we have looked into the matter and examined the officials concerned, and I am satisfied that the officials of the Ministry carried out their full duties and did send two copies to the Library of the House of Commons and two copies to the Library of the House of Lords, and I should be sorry if any blame or any suspicion attached to the officials of my Department. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that for his part he entirely disavows any such suspicion.
I come to the question why we want a census. If I were to rehearse all the reasons which have urged every Government since 1801 to undertake a census, I should occupy an unduly long time. I will point out only one matter, which may perhaps specially interest hon. Members opposite, and that is that the whole of the finances of the Local Government Act, 1929, as far as their distribution is concerned, depend upon an ascertainment of the population, district by district, and that if unfortunately no census is taken, the formulae would be extremely difficult to administer. Generally speaking, everyone knows that provision is made for a census in the arrangements of every civilised nation. We have passed through 10 years of such change in industry and employment that a record of the changes in employment during those 10 years, the shifting of the population from one industry to another, is a matter of the first concern to any Government which has to guide the financial and economic affairs of the nation. Having said that, I think the House will grant me a dispensation from entering into all the various reasons for the ascertainment of the total population, and so on.
The cost of enumeration in England and Wales will be £132,000. I am not yet in a position to say what will be the cost of tabulation. With regard to the suggestion that we should engage unemployed labour as far as possible, I will communicate that suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but I am bound to say there are considerable difficulties, the chief being that the amount of training

1459
required for this task is very long in comparison with the period of the work which could be given. The work of enumerators is a very short job indeed. I hope the House will now be satisfied that there is no necessity for passing this Prayer.
Mr. McSHANE: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to communicate with the Minister of Labour and request her to introduce a small specialist class of men and women from the Employment Exchanges who in a few weeks' time could be made thoroughly familiar with their work. That would ensure employment for many people.
Sir D. HERBERT: I hope the House will now allow me to withdraw my Motion. I was partly influenced in moving it by a desire to protect the interests of this House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS 1920 AND 1929.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the District Gas Company (Heathfield), Limited, which was presented on the 28th day of October and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is rather an important Measure, and I want to know what is the necessity for this change, and how it comes about. In a place like Heathfield, when you have a certain gentleman acting as receiver, although he may be a British subject, it is desirable to find out that he is a British subject. I want to be quite sure that this local authority will employ people of British origin. In Clause 5 there is a very complicated financial system under this particular Gas Order and various sums of money are mentioned.
  In Clause 5 the amount is £7,500, and Clauses 7 and 8 lay down the way in which this sum is distributed and the rates of interest. It seems rather curious
  1460
  that three-fifths is going to receive 6 per cent., while in Clause 8 there is £3,600 on which the rate of interest may be 10 per cent., and then there is a curious item of £100 original preference capital, which is to receive £7, or at the rate of 7 per cent. How does that one item come to stand out in that way? It is stated that additional capital also may receive 7 per cent. Again, Sub-section (3), and various other sub-sections of Clause 13, deal with the fittings of this company. I think that, in these times of industrial distress, when Bills of this kind are brought in, the House should see that under them British material and nothing else is used on the whole. Have the Government made any effort to see that British material is being use in this case?
  Clause 16 deals with anti-fluctuators. I am not quite sure how these are applied to gas; it may be a useful method, but I particularly want to be quite sure—and, if the Minister cannot give me an answer now, perhaps he will give me an assurance that I shall have it at the earliest possible moment—that these instruments are of British manufacture. If any are coming in from abroad, that is a matter that would have to be raised on another occasion. To-day there was an interesting question in connection with gas works. It was not answered verbally, but it suggested that, for the assistance of aerial navigation, gas works in towns should have the name of the town painted in large white letters on the tops of their gasometers. In these days it is essential that in progressive places like Heathfield and Walden this modern method of advertising should be used, and I would like the Minister's assurance that he will encourage and help this in every way that he can. [Interruption.] It might be useful to work both by day and by night, but I doubt whether I should be in order on that point. The only value of having these Orders brought before the House is that we may get some knowledge of what local authorities are doing in the spending of public or semipublic money on most useful works.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I am sure the House will greatly appreciate the interest of the hon. Member in important matters such as these

  1461
  Orders. The purpose of this Order is the transfer of certain powers from one company to another, and the conferring of additional powers whereby the supply of gas to the inhabitants of this district may be more effective and efficient than previously.
  With regard to the hon. Member's questions relating to the Order, I am sure he will understand that the Statutes under which these Orders are made compel the Department which I represent here to give the most detailed information in regard to the various headings that are essential under the provisions of the Act, and, as the hon. Member has quoted the Clauses, I am sure he will be able to understand, by reading these paragraphs, that this is done in order to protect the public and to give the fullest information in regard to the different spheres of activity in which the company is engaged. With regard to the name of the hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Member referred, I can only assume that, as he is acting in this capacity, he is a British subject. In regard to the other matters, I think he may rest assured that this draft Order is framed upon lines that will give the public the fullest possible protection.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Light and Coke Company, which was presented on the 28th day of October and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county borough of Stoke-on-Trent which war presented on the 28th day of October and published, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Company, which was presented on the 28th day of October and published, be approyed."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham Gas Company, which was presented on the 3rd day of November and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
  Mr. SMITHERS: In all seriousness, and with the same object as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) had in the question which he has just raised, namely, that of maintaining the privileges of the House, I desire to point out that when five or six Gas Orders are put down in one evening, it is our duty to ask questions about them and not to let them go through mechanically. I wish to know if there is any liability on the Government in connection with these Orders, and if any increase in public expenditure is involved. I also wish to know if there is any change in the share holdings of the companies concerned and if the shareholders have been consulted. Further, I desire to know if these Orders go through the hands of the Treasury officers before they are finally approved.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman, when he spoke previously, carefully avoided answering my question as to whether the material used was British material. That is a matter which some of us treat very seriously and I wish to know if, in this case, he has ensured that British material is to be used or if he has made any attempt to do so. The Government can do a good deal in these matters. If the hon. Gentleman has not done so, will he give an assurance that in future the Government will make every possible effort on these occasions to see that British material is used to the fullest possible extent?
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: Although it is true that it is necessary for the House to pass these Orders in order to enable these companies to carry out their additional powers, yet they are very largely private companies and bodies over which the Government have no direct jurisdiction, but in so far as it is possible to facilitate the use of British materials in any constructional works in which these companies may be engaged, I am sure we shall be only too pleased to do whatever is possible in that direction.

  1463
  In fact that policy is followed out as far as possible in these great constructional works. So far as the other questions are concerned, I do not think that any public money is involved. They are gas companies of the usual character, and it means that in this case, as in most others, they are seeking additional powers either to increase their capital or to extend their spheres of operations or to merge one company with another and the law in that respect lays down that it can only be done by an Order of this House. The procedure is by means of an inquiry which undoubtedly will be publicly advertised, and therefore any shareholder who feels himself aggrieved by any action the company might be deemed to be undertaking would be adequately considered in the sense that he would receive notice of the inquiry, and he would have an opportunity of presenting any views to the persons conducting the inquiry. Any representations that may be made in that respect would have serious consideration, and, if they mitigate against the Order being granted by this House, undoubtedly representations would be made to modify any difficulty that might arise. I can
  1464
  assure the hon. Member that in these inquiries it does frequently happen that certain interests make representations under certain heads and if the person conducting the inquiry thinks that the objections are substantial he makes representations and usually, in the end, the objections are withdrawn and mutual understanding is arrived at before the Order is presented to this House. That is exactly what has taken place in this instance.
  Mr. SMITHERS: What about the Treasury?
  Mr. SMITH: The Treasury have nothing whatever to do with these Orders.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

TRANSPORT.
  BRIDGES (CONSTRUCTION).
  BRIDGES (CONSTRUCTION).
  MOTOR INSURANCE.
  MOTOR INSURANCE.
  LEVEL CROSSING, RADSTOCK.
  LEVEL CROSSING, RADSTOCK.
  MOTOR COACH SERVICES, CENTRAL LONDON.
  MOTOR COACH SERVICES, CENTRAL LONDON.
  ROAD SCHEMES, SURREY.
  ROAD SCHEMES, SURREY.
RUSSIA.
  SITUATION.
  SITUATION.
  TINNED FOODSTUFFS.
  TINNED FOODSTUFFS.
  GRANTS, URBAN AND RURAL AREAS.
  GRANTS, URBAN AND RURAL AREAS.
  COUNTY AND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCILS (MEMBERSHIP).
  COUNTY AND COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCILS (MEMBERSHIP).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WOOWICH.
  WOOWICH.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  DOMESTIC SERVICE.
  BOOTLE
  BOOTLE
  CHATHAM.
  CHATHAM.
  STONE-QUARRYING AND MINING INDUSTRY.
  STONE-QUARRYING AND MINING INDUSTRY.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ENLISTMENT.
  ENLISTMENT.
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CORNWALL."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CORNWALL."
  PROMOTION.
  PROMOTION.
  EX-FLEET RESERVE MEN.
  EX-FLEET RESERVE MEN.
  HEADQUARTERS STAFF.
  HEADQUARTERS STAFF.
AVIATION.
  MUNICIPAL ARRODROMES
  MUNICIPAL ARRODROMES
  GROUND MARKINGS(GASOMETERS
  GROUND MARKINGS(GASOMETERS
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  FOREIGN OFFICERS (INSTRUCTION).
  FOREIGN OFFICERS (INSTRUCTION).
  ENLISTMENT.
  ENLISTMENT.
  PAY.
  PAY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FOREIGN MAUFACTURED GOODS (DUMPING).
  FOREIGN MAUFACTURED GOODS (DUMPING).
  EXPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  EXPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN).
  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  WAGES (LEGISLATION).
  WAGES (LEGISLATION).
  GOLD COAST (DISTURBANCE, APPAM).
  GOLD COAST (DISTURBANCE, APPAM).
  DEPENDENCIES (FORCED LABOUR).
  DEPENDENCIES (FORCED LABOUR).
  INFANT SCHOOL SITE, HENLEY-ON- THAMES.
  INFANT SCHOOL SITE, HENLEY-ON- THAMES.
  RURAL HOUSING (COMMITTEE).
  RURAL HOUSING (COMMITTEE).
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY.
LORD OLIVIER LORD OLIVIER had given Notice that he would call attention to the position of the British sugar industry and trade as affected by foreign capitalist mass over-production and to the effects upon Colonial economic conditions and British interests; ask His Majesty's Government whether it is still their considered policy to take no action to mitigate these destructive operations of a system which the principles of the Labour Party, as declared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, condemn as mischievous, whether it is still their intention as heretofore stated, to withdraw, as soon as the financial position of the Exchequer permits, the mitigating protection now afforded through the expedient of tariff Preference, and whether in that event they contemplate any alternative method of mitigation; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may perhaps seem to indicate a lack of sense of proportion on my part that, at a time when on all sides we are constantly receiving complaints of the entire destruction of British industry and are constantly confronted with the rising numbers of the unemployed, I should again ask your Lordships' House to take into special consideration the case of the British West Indian sugar industry. But I think there is occasion to do so, because last week two Papers were laid arising out of the special difficulties of the British West Indian sugar industry and the sugar industry of Mauritius. First of all, correspondence was laid, by my noble friend as promised, with the British West Indian Colonies, British Guiana and Mauritius. Secondly, and very significantly, a Supplementary Estimate has been laid in the other House making provision for expenditure on relief of labourers and for other purposes in the West Indies. At the same time, as a schedule to the
330
first-mentioned White Paper, the correspondence, there is a list of grants made from the Development Fund—none of which, I may say in passing, have any particular reference to the sugar industry. They have, however, brought the subject again rather into public notice, and it will be further noticed no doubt in another place.
I think there are some special reasons why it is not disproportionate to bring forward this question of the West Indian and British sugar industry. The position of the British Colonies takes them rather out of the run of our ordinary industrial interests, because we have special political duties towards the West Indian Colonies which are otherwise provided for than are our political duties towards our industries at home. In the second place, if I am not mistaken, the depression in prices and the underselling to which our British Colonial producers are exposed is far greater than in practically any other industry that I have been able to investigate. I will give figures in that connection later. It seems to me that, on that account also, we are dealing with a very special case. In the third place, I think that the ease of the West Indies raises in a very clear and definite manner the consideration of some of those questions that have been repeatedly occupying public attention generally—namely, how far we are to tolerate the anarchic operations of modern trade, to the destruction of one industry after another in which our own workers are engaged.
I am going very briefly to ask your Lordships to attend to a few figures, so that you may understand the situation. The present price of raw sugar, which is the ordinary staple world article produced by Cuba, the West Indies and so on, is £5 7s. 6d. per ton. That figure is in The Times to-day. It is perfectly impossible for any industry in the world to produce raw sugar at that price, or anything like it. The other day the chairman of an industrial enterprise in Havana gave an account of the terrible straits to which Cuba has been reduced, and he said that the majority of factories in Cuba could not possibly produce sugar at less than £9 6s. 8d. per ton without heavy loss, to say nothing of profit. That is the situation in Cuba to-day, and it confirms the analysis which my col-

331
league of the West Indian Commission and I made of the cost of production of sugar. You may say generally that the Cuban producers are the persons principally responsible for the present condition of the world's sugar industry, and that they are now getting about half of what it costs them to produce their sugar, though they are paying practically nothing for the cane which they buy, except the cost of cutting and transport.
It is rather interesting to consider the case of Cuba, because it is the most serious in the world situation. The case of Java has been mentioned, but all the authorities that I have been able to consult declare that it is less important than that of Cuba. It is interesting to consider how the situation in Cuba has arisen. During the War, American financial interests conceived the idea, which they expressed in terms which I have noted down, that American sugar production should aim at dominating Porto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Cuba and supplying the full requirements of the United States and of Europe (presumably destroying the industry of the West Indies) and establishing world sugar control. That policy has been pursued, and I speak of it in my Notice as "mass over-production," aiming at snatching control of the world market. American financial interests proceeded to obtain control of the sugar-producing areas of Cuba and to centralise the cane supply from the Cuban farmers in centrally situated factories until they had the control of the cane supply of those districts. They also obtained large concessions of virgin forest land, which they cut down, burnt and planted with large areas of cane. This land for many years required very little cultivation.
I was in Cuba this year and I found that those factories were spending practically nothing on cultivation. They have these large seas of cane, and between them at intervals fire-breaks on which Haitian labourers of a very barbarous-looking description were living in thatched huts and making their living between crop times by cultivating sweet potatoes and rearing a few goats. In crop time they handled the crop. For some time these factories have not been able to pay anything whatever for the cultivation of cane. At the same time the whole of the Cuban farming industry
332
was undergoing a severe crisis. The farmers complained that they had to sell their cane to the factories at a price of 5s. or 6s. per ton,, which merely paid for the cost of transport and cutting. There was therefore, at that time, a very severe economic crisis in Cuba and a large amount of unemployment. The Government was instituting a policy of compulsory food production, and at this moment, as you will see, the Cuban people are reacting to that state of affairs by attempting revolution against the Government, which they think has sold them to American financiers.
The effect of this speculative mass over-production was that American interests in Cuba, Santo Domingo and elsewhere raised the Cuban production to over 5,000,000 tons a year, which is very nearly one fifth of the whole world supply. At the same time the Continental nations were not going to be cut out by that industrial warfare, and Germany, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary re-constituted their own sugar industry in face of tremendous competition by a most drastic policy of Protection and subsidies. The first agent that has depressed the sugar market to its present condition is capitalist mass production for speculative purposes; but the second is subsidising, Protection and mass production on the Continent. All the Continental nations do this—Germany, Poland, Sweden and even Italy—but the special case which I will put to your Lordships is the case of Czecho-Slovakia, in order that your Lordships may see what is the kind of operation we have to contend with.
Czecho-Slovakia is a sugar-beet producing country. Czecho-Slovakia, according to the statement of her President, cannot produce sugar in its factories at less than 20 s. per cwt.—£20 per ton. In Cuba the average cost of production is £11 or £12 per ton and in our West. Indian Colonies about the same. How do they finance themselves in Czecho-Slovakia? They have an Import Duty of 21 s. per cwt.—that is to say fully equal to the value of the sugar—and they have a heavy Consumption Tax, which goes to the Government. Now as to the result of that Import Duty and Consumption Tax. It raises the price of sugar to about 6¼d. per lb., and gives the Government a fund. That sugar is now exported at £6 12 s. 6d.

333
per ton, or just about one-third of its cost of production, and 600,000 tons are I exported. 500,000 tons of German sugar is put upon the markets at about half the cost of production, as well as 300,000 tons from Hungary, and about the same quantity from Poland, all subsidised by their respective Governments with high protective duties, and so dumped at one-half or one-third of the cost of production. None of those countries, and not even the people who are financing Cuba, seem 10 show any disposition to let go that extraordinary policy. Those Governments argue that it is necessary to increase their wheat production by giving a subsidy for beet, and in all these countries it is a matter of agrarian policy.
In Great Britain, the cost of production of sugar per ton is £25 10 s. Beetroot costs £17 18 s. per ton of sugar, whereas in the West Indies cane grown costs £5 or £6 per ton of sugar. You will, therefore, see the extraordinary handicap with which British beet sugar has to compete. The figures show that British farmers have never succeeded in growing more than 9 tons to the acre, whereas in Germany and Czecho-Slovakia the production is 14 or 15 tons per acre., in Barbados (average) 29 tons, and in some Colonies up to 50 tons. It is therefore difficult to look hopefully upon the future of the British beet sugar industry. Nevertheless, with this cost of production and a subsidy of about £18 10 s. per ton—next year it will he £11 10 s. per ton—the British factories have held their own, although sugar at £18 10 s. per ton, or less than the cost of production. That £18 10 s. includes the duty.
Going back to the actual cost of production of sugar, raw sugar now costs £5 7s. 6d. per ton, or a little more than ½d. per lb. On that the Exchequer raises a duty of ⅞d. per lb. I am bound to say that I think it is a pretty stiff business to put a tax of ⅞d. per lb. upon an article worth per lb.—a duty which is more than the value of the article. That value, with that duty, and the cost of refining, brings the actual cost of the sugar to a little more than 2d. per lb., and it is retailed at 2¼d. in the shops. I think it is ridiculously cheap to have sugar sold at 2¼d. per lb., and if the Exchequer wishes to be generous to the consumer, and reduce the price still
334
more, it is surely quite possible to reduce the Sugar Duty, and, as is suggested in our Report, the West Indies would be pleased if we were to reduce the Sugar Duty to half the present amount and admit their sugar free. It might stimulate consumption.
These arguments have left my friends unmoved. I have said that I think the price of sugar is ridiculous at the present time. White refined sugar is at 2¼d. per lb., and the consumption per head in this country is 101 lbs.—substantially over ¼ lb. per head of man, woman and child per week, which seems to be a very liberal allowance, and even if the price were not reduced it would be possible to concede a little to the West Indian producers. Owing to the reduction in the price of sugar in the last few years our consumers have profited at the rate of about £14,000,000 per year, and since the Commission reported further reductions have benefited the consumers at the rate of £5,000,000 a year.
Now I want to come to the position to which circumstances have reduced our Colonies. We have had the White Paper laid before us, showing that the British West Indian producers are carrying on under great difficulties. The correspondence is there, and your Lordships will see that some of the Colonies, Jamaica, Trinidad and Mauritius, having funds at their disposal, have come to the assistance of their own sugar industry. In Trinidad, £2 per ton is given to private factories to keep up the price which they pay to the farmers, of 12 s. 6d. per ton for canes, which is really much too low for sugar cane. A reasonable price for sugar cane is about 17 s. 6d. per ton. However, they say that the factories must not pay less than 12 s. 6d. per ton. Mauritius adopted a scheme of advancing to the amount of £1 per ton by way of loan, and Jamaica also gave a subsidy of £2 per ton. Those three Colonies have been able to carry on their cultivation—the factories of course suffering considerable loss in several cases—but still they have been able to carry on their cultivation without much reduction.
British Guiana, which is not in a position to give any subsidy at all, has

335
already begun to wind up her sugar industry. I mentioned in this House last time I spoke that, owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's misunderstanding of the effect of an additional 1s. on the Preference, he had refused, on grounds which appeared to me entirely illogical, to allow that extra 1s. for Preference. The immediate effect of that was that cultivation on estates which had yielded an output of 20,000 tons of sugar per annum was dropped. I do not want to labour the case of British Guiana because it is before your Lordships already. The Government of British Guiana have had to apply for relief. I am glad to say that fairly liberal subventions have been made by the Development Fund. But you have a Supplementary Estimate of £114,000 for direct relief work to relieve the population, and at the same time you are doing nothing whatever to maintain the sugar industry; and when the sugar industry in two or three years collapses you will have in British Guiana a condition which fills me, and probably all who know the country, with despair. In Antigua and St. Kitts cultivation is being maintained, because their factories were solvent and adopted a liberal policy. But employment in Antigua has been necessarily cut down and there and in St. Kitts you have grants for relief works.
Now I come to the ease of Barbados. Barbados is a very capably farmed and actively enterprising island. The cultivation in Barbados is first rate, and the Barbadians are extremely intelligent planters and business men, and they managed by great efforts last year positively to increase their crop of sugar. They had a good crop, but also in the work of their Agricultural Department they were able, by enormous diffusion of parasitic wasps and so on, to keep down sugar cane pests. The result was that they did have in Barbados the good fortune of having a record crop of sugar, and on the whole the Barbados people came out with a loss of only about £1 a ton all round. But still people do not like going on with such a loss. And the Barbadians have not too much capital behind them. This year the Barbadian sugar people and the Government are trying to concert some scheme of public co-operative assistance on the lines if the Trinidad or Mauritius schemes, for the industry, which ought to be kept
336
going by this country in view of the enormous gains being made here by sweating the sugar industry in the West Indies. But my noble friends are entirely unmoved, although they are getting all these millions of pounds a year into the Exchequer, besides what goes into the pockets of the consumer.
The case of Barbados in one aspect offers a very severe criticism of one part of the Government's policy. In Trinidad there has been a very large development of the cane sugar farming industry, and more than 20,000 small farmers are now dependent on that industry. They have been maintained this year because the Government of Trinidad gave the factories a tonnage grant. I have here a most interesting Report by the Assistant Director of Agriculture. But I should like to read an extract first of all from a report of the Trade Commissioner in Barbados, which bears on the conditions of the labouring class. When I was out there the wages of labour were 1s. 8d. a day, and the labourers complained to me in a deputation that they could not get employed for more than four days a week. It is the policy of the Barbadian farmers to employ a large amount of unskilled labour, and they have a considerable surplus of labour. They think it is a good policy to have really more men on hand than they need to do the work. We disagreed with them as to its being a good policy, but, on the whole, it is a policy which commends itself to the community there. The Trade Commissioner, writing in July last, said—
"When wages were on the higher scale the hours of labour were curtailed, and most labourers were disinclined to work more than four days a week."
The higher scale is 1s. 8d. a day.
"They are now compelled to work six days a week to earn the same amount of wages."
The Trade Commissioner seemed to think that that solved the difficulty about the labour, but the real effect is that about one-quarter of the labourers have been thrown out of employment, the other three-quarters being employed at wages reduced by 25 or 30 per cent. That shows, by a totally independent and impartial report, what is happening in Barbados. He goes on:—
"Now, however, that grinding is almost finished, it is inevitable that money will

337
soon become very scarce especially as work of construction and renovation will be reduced to a minimum."
Some of your Lordships take an interest in agriculture. I want to take you a little further into the question of this growing peasant industry in the Colonies, which is a most important development, because it is making the West Indian negro progressive and independent. The Assistant Director of Agriculture is a Cambridge graduate of high scientific qualifications who went out two or three years ago. He is evidently a man of clear and independent mind. He writes as follows:—
"The present position of all three classes of peasant farmers is a very serious one. The price of sugar in 1929 caused losses to a very large percentage of peasant farmers. greatly embarrassing their financial position, and thus preventing proper tillage and manuring for 1930. The lower price of sugar in 1930 is causing the cessation of cultivation by certain classes of peasant Farmers, except for such meagre yields as can be obtained from the commonly grown food crops during the wet season in unmanured soil with a minimum of tillage. A continuation of prices similar to those now obtaining will very shortly drive the great majority of peasant farms out of cultivation. The class of peasant farmer who has still a relatively large debt against his farm, and is required to complete payment within the next two or three years, will undoubtedly find payment impossible, with the result that in many cases possession of the farm will be lost, in addition to the whole or a portion of the sum already subscribed. The few who, by means of financial assistance from other sources, are able to complete payment, will have run their farms down to a low standard of cultivation, from which recovery to a normal productive standard will be expensive. The peasant farmer who rents land is, under present circumstances, not only unable to make sufficient money from his farm to meet annual rent charges, but, like other classes of peasant, is also unable to meet minimum costs of cultivation and cropping. Rented farms therefore also become neglected and run down to a low standard of cultivation. Not only has the low price of sugar distressed the small farmer by directly reducing the value of his sugar cane crop, but it has indirectly reduced the value of the main food crops (yams, potatoes, and eddoes) firstly by increasing their production and. flooding the already unsatisfactory local market, and secondly by lowering the purchasing power of the agricultural labouring community, which has, owing to economic circumstances, been compelled to accept a lower standard of wages. The difficulty and distress of the peasant farmer is therefore not removed by substituting for sugar cane an increased area of other crops such as yams, sweet potatoes, eddoes and other minor food crops."
338
That is precisely what I foretold would happen, and it is happening. Your Lordships noted my observation that the labourers are now working six days a week instead of four. Most of them are what are called "located" labourers working under a yearly contract on the estate, and they rent an allotment of land from the estate on the condition that they cultivate cane and that they cultivate it for delivery to the factory. If they are working six days a week, they cannot possibly cultivate cane. The result is that the cane deteriorates and goes out of cultivation. That means that they not only have their wages cut down, but that they are getting less for the cane that they grow both because the price of cane has gone down and cultivation also has necessarily gone down.
I have gone into this question at some length because I have already tried to impress upon my noble friend on previous occasions that this idea that you can deal with the West Indian cane sugar question by giving relief grants to the people who are out of employment does not touch even the fringe of the problem. My previous attempts to explain that made no impression upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is practically the same as saying that if you give unemployment relief to our agricultural labourers, you will save the farming industry of this country when other causes are destroying it, just as they are destroying the West Indian sugar industry. That is the position, I can assure your Lordships, in these Islands of Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and Antigua. Whenever there has been a beginning of the cane farming industry, that beginning of social development and progress is being destroyed. Once it is destroyed, it will be extraordinarily difficult to renew it, even if the factories survive.
As I have said on former occasions, under present conditions, even with a Preference of £3 15 s. a ton, only about a quarter, or possibly a third, of the British West Indian sugar industry could continue to be carried on when the price was about £8 a ton. But the price now is less, and how long those in this country who finance West Indian production will be able to carry

339
on I do not know. The American financiers, having lost millions and millions of pounds on that spirited operation of collaring the sugar supply, have sent emissaries to the Continent to try to negotiate with foreign and Colonial Governments and Java a limitation of production and a restriction of dumping. So far the prospects of that enterprise do not appear to be very rosy. No one has yet succeeded by private negotiation, and I question whether anybody would succeed by official negotiation, in wheedling Germany or Czecho-Slovakia to the policy of not subsidising their farmers in the wheat industry. We ourselves are now subsidising our wheat farmers as theirs are being subsidised through the sugar industry.
The American financiers who control the Cuban sugar crop have taken rather drastic measures. They tried to get a law through the Cuban Parliament, but, failing in that, they got the Governor to issue an Ordinance that the sugar producers should limit their export to the United States, so that they will be able to get the whole of the American preference which hitherto they have not had, and they will then be able to put any reserve on the world market. The world production has been exceeding the world consumption by about 1,500,000 tons of sugar for some years past, and in Cuba they have in hand enormous stocks of unsold sugar to the extent of many millions of tons. If they took that 1,500,000 tons off the market it might have balanced over production this year. Unfortunately for the sugar market, and possibly unfortunately for the Continental taxpayers who have to pay for dumping, the Continental sugar crop has been about 20 per cent. above normal this year, and we are threatened with more sugar than ever next year.
I have said before, and I say again, Is it not a ridiculous abnegation of statesmanship, when you have a whole series of British Colonies and a whole British industry which supports your home industry depending upon a reasonable price, when they are perfectly capable of surviving if they can sell sugar at a reasonable price, to allow those communities to be destroyed and your export trade to those communities to
340
be destroyed by the operations I have described, without taking means to protect yourself against those operations? I do not care how far that argument may lead you or me. I say that in the case of sugar you have an extraordinarily salient case illustrating how the industries of the world, not only in this country but elsewhere, are being destroyed by anarchic trade and by a lack of safeguards against mass production by syndicated capital and insane policies of subsidies by Governments.
Unless our Government take the lead, as many Governments have in the past, of saying: "We are going to protect our own Colonies and look after our own Colonial labourers by some kind of organised and statesmanlike arrangement," instead of saying: "We let world competition take care of itself, and when these people have been destroyed and the peasants have been driven out of their holdings, so that they cannot even grow yams or potatoes, and so on, then we will undertake the impossible task of maintaining the West Indian population by 'doles.'"—the position will not be improved. You have 160,000 people in Barbados and nearly 300,000 in British Guiana. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will grant relief, I reply that these are cases to which relief cannot be applied. Although I willingly acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State have been most ready at once to respond to the recommendations of the Governors saying that relief is wanted, I say that these "doles" are unable to meet the situation, and that the West Indian and Mauritius sugar industry is being progressively destroyed and will go on being destroyed, with results which are too distressing for me to contemplate.
That is the situation. I do beg the Secretary of State to give me some assurance as to whether we can expect any alteration of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. We had a little gleam of hope the other day because it was noised abroad through the Press that at the Imperial Conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken that for three years he would not reduce the Preference. But he has given us that

341
undertaking before. He said before: "I will not reduce the Preference so long as the Duties exist." At the same time, there is the reservation that the rights of Parliament and that the necessities of the Budget must be considered. If the necessities of the Budget require the abolition of the Sugar Duty, our Preference will go with it. I should like a definite explanation on that point because there are people who are in doubt about it. Mr. Snowden has already told us "I will not touch Preferences until I remove the Duties; but I am going to remove the Duties as soon as I can." Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that as soon as he is able to take off any of those Duties, which now act as Safeguarding and Protecting Duties, those Duties are going, notwithstanding his declaration to the Imperial Conference? If we could get a clear explanation that certainly not for three years the Sugar Duties would be taken off, that, would be a strong point and more of the Colonial producers would go on with their business. I have moved for Papers pro forma although I do not know what Papers there are for which I can move.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I have taken part in so many debates on this subject in this House that I am sure your Lordships will pardon me if I once more express my views on this matter, which is of such vital importance to the Empire. The debates which have so far taken place in your Lordships' House have not been on such broad lines as the terms of this Notice. They have been confined rather to dealing with remedies for the salvation of the sugar industry of the West Indies and of Mauritius, but to-day we are asked to consider and discuss the question of sugar production from the point of view of the whole of the sugar production of the world, and its effects upon this country and upon the Empire. I think that we should be extremely obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, for having raised this issue to-day upon such broad lines. As the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, Secretary of State for the Colonies, has on a number of occasions informed us in the course of similar debates, it is only possible ultimately and adequately to deal with this question upon broad lines.
342
It is true to say that whilst in this country we can give subventions here and there to necessitous areas, and to smaller Colonies, we cannot, in framing our main sugar policy, do so without, considering and dealing with it from the point of view of the whole of the sugar producing areas of the British Empire. If this be so, and I do not believe that your Lordships will disagree with that point of view, what is the policy which can best be applied throughout the whole Empire? I do not wish to minimise in any way—and I do not think the noble Lord who has just sat down wished to do so either—the efforts which have been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to deal with the deplorable conditions which exist in the West Indies and Mauritius owing to the sugar crisis. I have, like the noble Lord, read very carefully this White Paper which was recently published by the Colonial Office, and I realise—and this comes home to me with great force—that, with the existing Free Trade policy of His Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State for the Colonies has done his best to mitigate hardships in those Colonies. But I cannot conceal from myself the fact that those efforts have been of little avail, because it is the Free Trade policy of the Government which makes it almost impossible effectively to create any lasting or permanent remedy for the conditions in which those Colonies find themselves.
I should like to give to your Lordships an example of this. The Secretary of State suggested in the Despatch to the Governor of Barbados that relief works might be undertaken in order to mitigate the hardships in that Colony. What was the Governor's reply? It was, in the Despatch of August 29 last, as follows:—
"In Barbados development works of a kind likely to provide for the employment of thousands of people are beyond the scope of practicability. The Island is fully roaded. Every acre of it is fully utilised for agricultural purposes, and the labouring population generally know nothing of anything other than intense cultivation of the soil and the growing of sugar cane. In these circumstances, I consider that the only form of relief that ran in itself be an effective means of providing against the contingencies referred to is the maintenance, so far as is possible, of agricultural activities, and these, so far as Barbados is con-

343
cerned, are restricted and must for practical purposes continue to be restricted to the sugar industry."
That is the practical question. How are His Majesty's Government going to maintain the sugar industry in that Colony and other Colonies? Or are they prepared in some instances, such as the Colony I have just spoken of, to allow the industry to go out of existence altogether; and, if so, how are they going to face the ruin and chaos, economic and political, which inevitably must follow upon such extinction?
The West Indian Sugar Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, was so admirable a Chairman, suggested the remedy—and in my opinion, it is the only remedy—and it is the maintenance and extension by this country of the Sugar Preference. It is fair in that case to see what the Sugar Preference has already done for the Empire sugar industry since that Preference was instituted in 1919, but before doing that I should like to examine shortly the figures of world sugar production for the year before the war as compared with the year 1927–28, which is the latest year in respect of which I have been able to secure statistics. For this purpose, I have separated the world production of raw cane sugar from the world production of raw beet sugar, and as a result I think your Lordships will agree there is a most interesting situation.
Take cane sugar first. In 1912–3 the world production was 9,500,000 tons. I find that in 1927–8 the world production of raw cane sugar had increased up to 16,500,000, or an increase of 75 per cent. during that period. Turning to the raw beet sugar production, I find that in 1912–3 it was 8,500,000 tons, while in 1927–8 it was practically the same, having advanced only to 9,000,000 tons, or an increase of only 6 per cent. as against an increase of 75 per cent. in cane sugar. Those figures are, I think, very significant, and they give cause for considerable thought, because they show what very great rivalry there is to-day between the production of the cane sugar growers and the beet sugar growers. They also show that as far as mass production is concerned probably the cane sugar growers have reached an even higher level than the beet sugar growers. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has told
344
us, has reached a high level in Cuba, where the production of cane sugar has increased from 2,500,000 tons to 4,000,000 tons in 1928. In South America I find that so far as cane sugar is concerned the production has quadrupled, from 500,000 tons to 2,000,000 tons in 1928.
Now this seems to me to show that any co-ordinating measures that could be taken to regulate the output of sugar in the world would have to apply more drastically to cane sugar than to beet sugar. In saying what I am going to say I do not wish your Lordships to think that I am against any investigation on a large scale of this matter, because I believe that there is always good to be gained by consultation and coordination over questions of production, especially where production has reached such a high level of over-production as it has in the sugar industry. What I should like to know is how these measures are going to affect this country and the Empire. To-day in Great Britain we are producing anything between 400,000 and 500,000 tons of beet sugar—a figure which I venture to believe could well be maintained, if not increased, to the advantage of the farmers of this country. But, when you go outside beet sugar production, the interests of this country are, in my judgment, centred in the cane sugar growing industry in our Dominions and Colonies, because in my opinion it is much more beneficial for us to import cane sugar from our overseas Possessions than beet sugar from European countries.
In making that assertion I should like your Lordships to bear in mind particularly this point. Cane sugar imported from our Dominions and Colonies has signified to this country during the past few years—1920 to 1928—orders for nearly £6,000,000 worth of sugar machinery. That was purchased in this country by the Dominions in order to increase their sugar production. Why? Because of the preferential system which had been adopted in this country. What has been the general effect of that Imperial Preference system? In 1913, just before the War, only 75,000 tons of sugar were imported from the Colonies, because in those days I think there was no importation from the Dominions into this country. As a result of Preference since the War that figure has hounded up to 700,000 tons—almost ten times as

345
much as before the War, and, what is more important, amounting to nearly two-fifths of the whole of our sugar consumption in this country. That is a remarkable increase, and it is due to the Sugar Preference. It is due to the policy which has been so forcibly advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, in the West Indies, in this country and in this House. I have no hesitation in suggesting, therefore, that the policy of Great Britain should be to foster the development of cane sugar production within the Empire on the basis of increased Preference, so as to make this country and the Empire self-supporting in this respect.
What does this country gain by buying its sugar as it does to-day, or a very great part of its sugar, from foreign countries? Most of those foreign countries give us little or nothing in return. They purchase very few goods from us. They dump their sugar, as the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has described to us, in this country at prices very far below the cost of production, very far below the cost at which we can produce in this country, very far below the cost. at which our Dominions and Colonies can produce it, and at prices which are injurious therefore to this country and to the Dominions and Colonies. His Majesty's Government to-day imply that so long as sugar is cheap it does not matter where it comes from. If people like myself prefer to have our sugar produced in our Dominions and our Colonies at a fair and remunerative price to the producer, even if it does cost a little more to the consumer—because there is something to be said on the other side as far as that is concerned—if we would rather have our sugar from those places than from Czecho-Slovakia, then we are accused of having a prejudice against the Government who send that sugar into this country.
Last week I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in a debate raised by my noble friend Lord Newton, with regard to the dumping of Russian goods and Russian wheat into this country at prices far below the cost of production. The noble Lord said that my noble friend Lord Newton was prejudiced against the Russian Government because he objected to that. In the same way, no doubt, I shall be told that because I object to
346
sugar coming from Czecho-Slovakia I am prejudiced against the Government of Czecho-Slovakia. I never heard such nonsense. It is a matter of business, not a matter of prejudice. It is a matter of the conditions, and the improvement of conditions, in this country and the Empire.
Unfortunately, His Majesty's Government are not even on the horns of a dilemma. They have come down almost entirely upon the side of foreign countries as against the Empire. I can only conclude this because, without definitely saying so, both the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade have indicated in public speeches since the Imperial Conference ended that this was the case. They say, in effect, that we cannot afford to lose our trade with foreign countries. But why should they say this at all? None of us wish to lose our trade with foreign countries, but those of us who are in active business—and they are not—realise that, whether we like it or not, owing to local fiscal policies we are losing our trade with foreign countries. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary, if we are to compensate this country in any way for what we are losing, that we should eater immediately and substantially into expanded and closer trade relationships with other parts of the Empire in as many ways as we can, and certainly in the way which I have indicated in the remarks I am making. If we do not, Great Britain will gradually decline and fall, and there will arise a new Gibbon to relate of the British Empire what Gibbon wrote of the Roman Empire, with the difference that, having regard to our opportunities, the decline and fall of the British Empire will receive greater condemnation at the bar of history in the years to come.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate for only a very few moments, and for a specific purpose. We have debated this subject very fully on other occasions during the last few months, and the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, has dealt very fully this afternoon with the situation as it exists. He has made it quite clear to us that the situation, so far as the industry in the West Indies is concerned, is still extremely grave. I do not wish to enter into any details, because, as I have said,

347
the subject has been dealt with very fully, but although no actual disaster has taken place up till now, this does not mean that, unless some active steps are taken at the earliest possible opportunity to relieve the situation which exists out there, there will not be a very serious catastrophe so far as the sugar industry in the West Indies is concerned.
The real reason I rose was to support the request of the noble Lord that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, will clear away the doubt that clearly exists in regard to the question of the retention of the Preference in favour of Colonial sugar. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned in regard to this matter in another place, he gave a somewhat nebulous answer, and, as this matter is of extreme importance to the growers of sugar in the West Indies, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to make the situation quite plain this afternoon. When questioned with regard to the decision of the Imperial Conference that Preferences should be retained for the next three years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:—
"This application, is, of course, governed by any provisions, e.g., as to duration, in the existing law relating to those Duties, and is subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year."
What exactly does that mean? We have heard already that, so far as the Safeguarding Duties are concerned, it means that the Preferences are not to be continued, that they will be allowed to lapse, but we should very much like to know the exact meaning of this interpretation in regard to the Duties on sugar.
Does it mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is liable, whenever he introduces a new Budget, to overthrow the Preference by abolishing the Duty altogether, or does it mean that this Preference will be retained for three years at least unless Parliament takes a different view from that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it the intention of the present Government—I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer the question quite clearly—to retain this Preference for the next three years if the matter is left in their hands? That is all that I really wish to say on this very important question of the West Indian sugar industry. I think that, if
348
the noble Lord is able to give that definite assurance this afternoon, it will at any rate do something, though perhaps very little, to mitigate the situation that exists out there.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like to ask whether any official attempts, as between Governments, have ever been made to arrive at world control of the over-production of sugar.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions when I have had to stand up to the assaults of my noble friend Lord Olivier, I have no promising tale to tell. Undoubtedly the situation in the sugar-producing Colonies is grave, and I should be very sorry to be at all optimistic as to what the consequences maybe next year or the year after, if the present crisis in the sugar industry of the world continues. I will attempt to deal with the criticisms and suggestions that have been made and, so far as I can, I will be absolutely frank with your Lordships about the position. My noble friend Lord Olivier said that the present situation was due, in the first instance, to the anarchy of capitalist production. I agree with him entirely, but I take it that what he means is that sugar producers all over the world have set themselves to increase production irrespective of demand. Each man and each district has striven to increase the production of sugar over a period of years without having any regard to what other people are doing and, indeed, without having very much knowledge. That is a very typical case. It happens constantly in other industries.
The result has been not merely a large increase in production all over the world, as to which the noble Viscount. Lord Elibank, gave us some interesting figures to which I shall return in a moment, but also—and this is the immediate cause of the slump in prices—to an enormous accumulation of the visible stocks of sugar in the world. I may he wrong, but I do not think that it is necessary to import into the discussion, as a cause of the fall in the price of sugar, any suggestion of sinister motives upon the part of Americans or anybody else. The plain situation is that, for one reason or

349
another, you have this large accumulation of the visible stocks, which must be got rid of, and so long as that accumulation is there I am afraid it is rather difficult to expect any considerable rise in the price of sugar, even if there were no sinister motives concerned in the matter, as I do not think that there are.
Here again I should like to point out that we really ought to be careful when we talk about dumping. Naturally all these sugar producers all over the world, with their accumulated stocks, have to sell those stocks from time to time. They have to do their best to get rid of the sugar, and the result is, as you have seen, that they have sold their stocks at a price far below the cost of production. It is true that this is facilitated and aided by various fiscal movements, in Czecho-Slovakia and other places, but at the same time it would go on without them, because of the accumulation of stock. Cuban producers do not wantonly sell at so low a price. They sell at the best price they can get in the world market, but under the pressure of having to dispose of their stock they are virtually compelled to sell sooner or later at the world price. I do not think it is of any use talking about dumping, because at any rate in sugar that is done all round, by all countries. The West Indies are selling their sugar at a price below what it costs, as the noble Lord has said, and I would remind your Lordships that in another part of the British Commonwealth of Nations—namely, Queensland—you have almost precisely the fiscal arrangements which are described as wicked or sinister in Czecho-Slovakia. You have the Queensland sugar producers, stimulated by the desire of gain, increasing their output of sugar with the assistance of the Australian Government, which not only maintains a heavy Duty preventing other sugar from coming in, but enables the Queensland sugar producers to sell at a very high price indeed to consumers in Australia, and the balance which they do not need, has to be disposed of in the world's market at whatever price the Queensland sugar producers can extract, and that is very often a very low price.
Where you have an article produced in excess of the demand, so that stocks accumulate, you will have those stocks offered on the market at a cost below
350
the cost of production, and that is the case with regard to sugar. The price of sugar which has gone down, as the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, pointed out, to such an extent, has gone down for the producers of sugar in this country also, and they are selling below their cost of production, and dumping is universal, therefore, in regard to sugar. It is not quite universal, but it is practically universal among the producers of sugar. That is the situation which the West Indian sugar producers and the Government have to meet, and, speaking frankly and candidly, I do not know how it can be met. I do not think it is possible to meet it, but I will deal with some of the suggestions which have been made. First of all, I want to point out that Lord Elibank said that it was due to the Free Trade policy of the Government, but I would like to remind the noble Viscount that in the case of sugar the Government of the United Kingdom has long been not at all pursuing a Free Trade policy. Here you have, with regard to sugar, all the elements which are put forward occasionally by noble Lords—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord forgive me? What I said was that it was because of their Free Trade policy that the Government were not able to do anything.
LORD PASSFIELD: If the noble Viscount had had a little patience he would have understood me. We have here, with regard to sugar, in the policy of the Government, which is the policy of the last Government and the policy of the Government before that, all the factors of a Protectionist policy, or should I say an Empire Free Trade policy. You have first a Duty against the import of sugar. We are often told that none of these things can be done without a tariff. You have a Duty, not of 10 per cent., not of 20 per cent., but, as Lord Olivier said, a Duty of 100 per cent., roughly speaking. That is the heaviest possible Protective Duty that you can imagine.
Then we have a Preference for Empire sugar, and it is a large Preference of £3 15 s. per ton, which, as a matter of fact, is something like 70 per cent. of the price of sugar to-day, or about 30 per cent. of the cost of sugar in the West Indies. It is a Preference which is ex

351
tended to all the sugar producers within the Empire. It does not go merely to the West Indies or to Mauritius, but also to Natal and the South African Union, and to Queensland, whose fiscal peculiarities I have been describing. There we have all the elements of the Protectionist armoury, and for good or evil we cannot be said to be pursuing a Free Trade policy in the matter of sugar. We have a very heavy tariff, heavy Customs, and a Preference for Empire producers, and, is order to make the thing complete, a very heavy subsidy indeed to British producers of sugar. If we have got into all this trouble whilst employing all the weapons in the Protectionist armoury, it is a little hard to be accused of having got there because we have stuck so tightly to a Free Trade policy. I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not prepared to say that the case has become worse than it would have been because a Protectionist policy has been pursued—that would be an argument for another time—but you cannot easily turn head over heels, from Free Trade to Protection, in this respect, because you have already gone far into Protection in respect of sugar.
Then Lord Elibank asked how we could maintain the sugar industry in Barbados and our other Colonies. That is what Lord Olivier wants to do. There is no way that I can see, which has been brought to the notice of the Government, by which the industry can be maintained at this high level of production, this enormously increased production to which Lord Elibank referred. except by a large additional subsidy from the British Exchequer, because, be it observed, the Preference of £3 15 s. per ton given to Empire grown sugar imported into this country is a direct money subsidy from the British Exchequer to sugar producers in the Empire; that is to say, that as a great deal more sugar comes in which is not British, and as the Duty which is levied would be paid by that foreign sugar, the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself deficient by every penny of that 15 s., just as much as if it were voted in the Estimates as a gift.
It has been suggested by Lord Olivier, and before this debate, that we should increase that gift to the West Indies and Mauritius, and, I suppose, to other Em-
352
pire producers, by £2 or £3 per ton, in order to keep up the present extent of sugar production within the Empire. This Government has not seen its way to increase its expenditure by that amount and, if I might venture on a prophecy, I would say that any other Government would find it extremely difficult, in view of the demand for economy, to increase the expenditure of the British Exchequer by the necessary amount in order, much as we may sympathise with the West Indian producers, to keep up the present area of sugar-production throughout the British Empire.
LORD OLIVIER: Did the noble Lord state that I proposed an additional preference of £2 to £3 per ton? If so, he is mistaken. I only proposed an addition of about £1 per ton.
LORD PASSFIELD: It is perfectly true that, writing a year ago the noble Lord suggested that sum, but even on his own figures that would not be sufficient, except on the best estates, and since that time the world price has dropped still more. But nothing turns on figures. I mean, if you are going to maintain the present amount of sugar production in the British Empire, no remedy has been suggested except that of increasing this gift from the British taxpayer to the British producers of sugar by the necessary amount to enable them to go on producing without loss—and not merely the best of them to go on producing without loss, because if you are going to maintain the area and the amount you will have to save from loss not merely the best but the average and the middling, and theoretically right down even to the worst. But we will not push it as far as that; perhaps the worst might be allowed to go out of cultivation. But at any rate, whether it is £1 per ton or £2 per ton, it is a very considerable amount. No doubt it is small enough for one particular Island, but when you consider the sugar producers throughout the Empire it is an amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to grant, and which I can hold out no hopes whatever to your Lordships that he will be able to grant.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble Lord, before he leaves that question, say something about the trade which we receive in return from the Dominions and Colonies?
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sorry to say I cannot deal with that on this occasion. Of course, there is no doubt that if the West Indies were flourishing they would buy more goods from this country, and for that reason alone we would wish they were flourishing. But the noble Viscount will not suggest that, even in order to keep up trade in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should increase his gift to the sugar producers of the Empire.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I certainly would.
LORD PASSFIELD: At any rate, it would have to be put, nakedly in that way before you could come to any conclusion on the subject. With regard to the Preference, it is not for me to expound what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. I have before me the declaration of His Majesty's Government at the Imperial Conference, in which it was stated—
"In the meantime His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have declared that the existing preferential margins accorded by the United Kingdom to other parts of the Empire will not be reduced for a period of three years or pending the outcome of the suggested Conference, subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year."
Now, I think that is clear enough. I do not need to explain what "preferential margins" mean. They mean that, assuming that the Duty had to be reduced, it would not be reduced to a point which would diminish the amount of the Preference. If there is a £3 15 s. per ton Preference on sugar to-day, whatever the Sugar Duty that £3 15 s. per ton would remain. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about what that means. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year." Obviously a Minister cannot arrogate to himself the right to say what will be done. At any rate in terms he must maintain the right of Parliament to do as it pleases from year to year.
But the present Government has announced its intention. I am not going to attempt any gloss upon that. I will, however, just add one word of explanation in regard to part of the source of doubt which was expressed in the House of Commons, and that was with regard to statutory limitations. That does not arise
354
in the case of sugar. In the case of sugar there is no doubt at all that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring to was the existing Preference of £3 15 s. per ton or thereabouts, and that he expressed the intention of the present Government not to reduce that Preference for the term of three years. The reference to the possible outcome of the suggested Conference at Ottawa I think hardly introduces any doubt into the subject. It is not for me, as I say, to put, any words into the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the decision of the Government, and I think that will be clear enough to the West Indian planters and the West Indian interests; at least I do not think it could be put any clearer, so long as we do maintain that Parliament must be free to do as it pleases, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer at some past time has said something as to what it ought to do,. But, subject to the supremacy of Parliament, the position is clear enough, I think, as regards sugar.
Now, I should like to say a word with regard to the over-production generally in the world. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, gave us figures and showed that, whereas beet sugar in the course of fifteen years had practically not risen at all, only from 8,500,000 to 9,000,000 tons—that was very largely due, of course, to the dislocation of the War, but it does not matter what is was due to; the influence of beet sugar on the price of sugar depends on its amount, and that therefore is not any vital factor—whereas, I say, beet sugar production had hardly risen at all, the production of cane sugar in the fifteen years has gone up from 9,500,000 tons to 16,500,000 tons. That is the cause which has produced this very large accumulation of visible stocks. We are face to face with what the economists, in their pedantic language, call "an inelastic demand" in the case of sugar. Apparently, the world is having as much sugar as it is prepared to pay for even at a low price, and all the attempts of our producers of chocolates and so on to encourage us to eat more sugar apparently do not have very much result on the aggregate demand of the world for sugar. In face of that fact the aggregate production has gone on piling up, and is still going on piling up, and consequently—we may dismiss

355
all the fiscal accusations—the mere fact of the over-production must necessarily keep the price down.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked a question as to whether anything was being done in the way of co-ordinating the world's production so as to obtain some sort of agreed limitation. I have, unfortunately, nothing that I can say about that. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish. Certain attempts have been made to get up negotiations in more than one quarter. Those attempts have been very favourably received by this Government, but I am bound to say that they do not seem to have got very far, and I am afraid that the over-production is so great, so multifarious all over the world, and so many Governments are interested in it, that I cannot say that I have any great hopes that anything will come of those international negotiations for a co-ordination of the world production so as to make it fit the world demand. But certainly the Government will be very glad to take part in, and to favour as far as possible, any such attempts that can be made. We should, of course, have to take the Governments of the Dominions and the Colonies interested in sugar along with us, as I assume that they would be willing to take part; and certainly we would have nothing to say against it.
I was going to tell your Lordships a little about the condition of the several Colonies, but my noble friend Lord Olivier has touched upon the salient points, and, as he knows and has told your Lordships, we are watching it very carefully, and we have already sanctioned attempts in the various Colonies to do what the Governors report to be necessary in those Islands. The amounts may seem small, except in the case of British Guiana. British Guiana is undoubtedly the most difficult spot at the present time. Jamaica and Trinidad are helping themselves as far as they can. For the present that seems to suffice. In Barbados, though wages have fallen, as the noble Lord said, the Governor reports that the cost of living is also lower than it was, and he does not tell us of any serious position there. The last communication that we had from him draws attention to the fact that no estates or sugar factories have been closed down, and that the Agricultural
356
Bank is increasing its advances and, apparently, suffices for the moment. They are suffering not merely from low prices but from the effect of drought, which is serious, but the condition of the people which is at all times, I am sorry to say, very low, does not seem to be appreciably worse, and they have not found it necessary to start relief works.
In British Guiana undoubtedly the position is serious; but I have a telegram from the Governor in which he says that at present 1,150 men are actually employed on Government relief works, and a like number are on the register but not yet employed; that is to say, in the worst case we have something like 2,506 families or men upon our hands. The explanation is that sugar grinding and rice harvesting have now taken a large supply of temporary labour which would otherwise be unemployed, and is liable to be so later if some other employment is unavailable. The House of Commons has been asked to vote two grants, one of £112,000 for British Guiana and another of £50,000 for British Guiana, because of the anticipated difficulties there, and that will not be all if we get further bad news. That is the worst case. In the other sugar islands, as I say, small grants have been made and are being utilised wherever the necessity has arisen, but up to the present the shrinkage in the actual production of sugar does not seem to have, I will not say it has not, occurred anywhere, because no estates or factories have closed down in Barbados; and so, generally, that is the story. I admit that next year things may be worse, but we cannot tell. I would only say that if I had been in a position a year ago to say to your Lordships that the Sugar Preference would not be diminished for three years, I think my noble friend would have thought that a rather considerable concession. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now seen his way to make the declaration that I have mentioned, but that is the only encouragement that I am in a position, unfortunately, to hold out in this matter. I think I have dealt with all the points as well as I can. I have certainly been frank. I have concealed nothing.
My noble friend moved for Papers. We have issued Papers very elaborately right down to the end of September.

357
No doubt we can issue some more, but I think there ought to be a little interval. We cannot have White Papers every month or two. Perhaps the noble Lord will be content with my assurance that as soon as there is a proper bulk of Papers to be presented, they shall be presented. I do not want to resist the Motion, but I do not think that we ought to be asked to issue another White Paper right on the heels of the one that has just been issued.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I do not know how far the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, is satisfied with the reply on the fiscal point. I put down my Question before that interesting fiscal point arose. I am not quite sure what the noble Earl will understand by the reply with respect to that point; but from the practical point of view, and on behalf of my West Indian friends, I feel sure that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have any money to throw away during the next three years, there will not be any very active motion on his part to do away with the Duties. With that I think my West Indian friends will be satisfied, having regard to the other considerations that have been mentioned, and that with the Preference they will endeavour to go on, for whatever that Preference is worth.
There were several very interesting points which my noble friend went into in the course of his reply, and I should like to deal with one or two of them, although they are, perhaps, of a rather abstract nature. I spoke of the position as being due to mass over-production and dumping. My noble friend said that one must not say that mass overproduction is sinister. I did not say that it was sinister on the part of American financiers to try to collar the whole of the sugar trade of the world. But they did try to do it, and, though perhaps it was a proper operation from their point of view, it was a very sinister one for us and our operations. That is all I can say. My noble friend spoke of the Czecho-Slovakian and Continental dumping as being a sort of automatic and unhelped over-production, that these people produce this sugar and that they ought, of course, to sell it. If you examine the Continental sugar position you will see a most extraordinary series of figures. You will find, for instance,
358
that Czecho-Slovakia, which produces little more than 1,000,000 tons of sugar, exports 600,000 tons. is that an accidental over-production, or the unwilling sending of sugar over the world? I think my noble friend is getting too innocent in his old age.
I think myself that certain financial interests, in the form of sugar cartels and so on, in Germany, have a financial interest in the way in which the sugar trade is manipulated. It is to somebody's advantage, it is to the interest of the sugar cartels in Germany or of somebody else to see that this overproduction goes on and that this surplus is dumped. That is what I call deliberate dumping. It is a deliberate policy. Indeed, I would say that it is a sinister policy of dumping. I do not think it is an accidental over-production because our sugar beet people have rushed in. It is a definite capitalist organisation and, if I were speaking in our old jargon, I should say it is a definite capitalist scheme for making money out of the public of the world. Seeing these things and acknowledging them, I ask why does my noble friend say: "We are Free Traders, and we must not interfere with these things"—the things which lie and I have been fighting against all our lives, saying that we must get control of the capitalist system and interfere with it. When the Americans are over-producing sugar in Cuba, and the European cartels are deliberately producing and dumping three times as much as they want and are selling it at one-third of the price simply for the sake of the financial interests, why should we sit quietly and allow it to go on? I think it is perfectly insane.
I withdraw my Motion for Papers because I do not think I shall get any more out of such Papers than I got out of the last lot. But I would remind Lord Elibank that my first remedy was not to increase the Preference, because I do not think that a tariff Preference is the best way of dealing with these evils. My first suggestion was an organised marketing system which, I think, is the proper way of dealing with the position. Having regard to the appeal of my noble friend, I withdraw my request for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Expenses of Colonial vessels and naval forces while at disposal of His Majesty.
3.Nothing in this Act or any Order in Council made thereunder shall be taken to authorise the payment out of the revenues of the United Kingdom of any expenses incurred in equipping or maintaining any vessel, officers or men placed at the disposal of His Majesty under this Act, or in providing the pay, wages, pensions, grants or other emoluments of any such officers or men or of their wives, widows, children or other dependants, but any such expenses may be so paid, if, and so far as, the Commons House of Parliament hereafter think fit to make provision by Resolution for that purpose.
LORD PASSFIELD LORD PASSFIELD had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out "the Commons House of Parliament hereafter think fit to make provision by Resolution" and to insert "moneys may be provided by Parliament in any year."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, I hope, will meet the objection taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, yesterday. As I explained, or attempted to explain, this was a draftsman's complexity and ingenuity and I want to withdraw whatever the draftsman meant me to say yesterday. I am sure I said it very imperfectly. He has now—and I have accepted it—produced a draft which goes back to the old phrase. Whatever the draftsman was attempting to do, and I think I understand what he was attempting to do,
360
would have been a good thing. At the same time, the phrase used was unfortunate, and I am very glad to go back to the old phrase, and to move the Amendment as printed, that "moneys may be provided by Parliament in any year" for that purpose. That I am told is the nearest way of getting back to the old phrase and it is the phrase to which your Lordships are accustomed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out from ("as") to ("for") in line 34, and insert ("moneys may be provided by Parliament in any year").—(Lord Passfield.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I desire to express my thanks to the noble Lord for having met the point which I raised yesterday. I cannot agree with him, however, that it would have been a good thing to leave it as it was. I think that would have formed a very bad precedent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ABERGAVENNY AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of the Borough of Abergavenny and part of the rural district of Abergavenny, in the County of Monmouth:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.