Sitting of 1 December 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Maidstone Extension) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Sittingbourne and Milton) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Clydebank Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ELECTION EXPENSES.
Address for,
"Return of the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of October, 1931, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as declared to the returning officer pursuant to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and of the number of votes polled to each Candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of absent voters (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 114, of Session 1929–30)."—[Mr. Stanley.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO OUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have presented schemes under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, the number of houses proposed to be built; and what schemes he has approved and the number of houses included in the approved schemes?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Fourteen county councils in Scotland have submitted applications for a special contribution under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931. The number of houses covered by these applications is 1,748. As the Act provided that applications could be made at any time before the 30th November, 1931, and as the amount of money available for distribution is a fixed sum, the advisory committee appointed under the Act have not been in a position to dispose of any of the applications, and accordingly none of the proposals submitted has yet been approved.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Member tell me whether he is still considering these schemes; or has his Department dismissed them entirely?
    Mr. SKELTON: Oh, no. The applications have not been dismissed. They are still under consideration.
    Mr. TEMPLETONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that without unnecessary delay and expense tenants are enabled to insist on landlords carrying out the necessary repairs in contemplation of which they were given an increase of rent in the last amendment of the Rent Restrictions Act?
    Mr. SKELTON: The question of the enforcement of repairs is one which, along with other matters relating to the Rent Restriction Acts, will be considered by the Government in the light of the report of the Departmental Committee which was recently issued.
    Mr. TEMPLETON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this condition of the increased rental is notoriously neglected by the owners of house property in the West of Scotland?
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the tenants even at present have certain remedies in their own hands. Where the house is certified, I think I am right in saying, that the tenant, if he is sued for payment, can put in a certificate as presumptive though not conclusive evidence that the house was not, and is not, in a reasonable state

    907
    of repair. And my hon. Friend will find that there are other remedies, which I will not go into at present.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government have in mind any return being made by the house owner or the factor as to the amounts taken by them in the 25 per cent. for repairs, and how much has been expended by them in repairing the houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: As regards what is in the mind of the Government, I cannot at this moment say; and, as regards the general question, I should require notice.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will make inquiries into the condition of those houses to which the question refers, he will find that the statement made in the House of Commons is absolutely true.

    GAIRLOCH PIER.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the representations made to him as to the state of dangerous disrepair of the pier at Gairloch; and if he proposes to take any action?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, Gairloch Pier is privately-owned and therefore no assistance towards the cost of its reconstruction could be given from the monies at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture.

    UNTRIED PRISONERS (ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW).
    Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that untried prisoners are compelled to sleep on the floor of cells at Glasgow central police office; and if he will consider whether it is possible for some better provision to be made for them?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am informed that each of the cells in the Glasgow central police station is equipped with a bed. Chairs, tables, mattresses and rugs are kept in all police
    908
    stations, and these are available in normal cases for the use of untried prisoners.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the claim by Professor R. W. Wheeler that a satisfactory solution of the low-temperature carbonisation problem has now been evolved at Sheffield University, which has been accepted by the Third International Bituminous Congress at Pittsburg; and whether he will put at the disposal of the House all the information he has on this subject?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): Although Dr. Wheeler visited America on behalf of the Safety in Mines Research Board he did not attend the conference referred to as the representative either of that Board or of the Government. He described one of the large number of low-temperature carbonisation processes which are the subject of examination and experiment in this country. I have no doubt his paper will he published in the technical Press.
    Sir A. BAILLIE: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us whether, in view of the potential importance of such a proposal to coal mines and also to the shale oil industry in Scotland, any steps are contemplated to put this new system into operation and give it a trial on a commercial basis in this country?
    Mr. FOOT: Every opportunity will be given for testing, and all means at the disposal of our Department can be used in this direction, but it would be impossible, of course, for the Department to express an opinion upon the process until the necessary proofs have been given.

    WINDLESTONE COLLIERY.
    Mr. JENNINGSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the closing down of Windlestone Colliery some time ago; and if he has any information as to the possibility of the mine being reopened?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand that Windlestone Colliery

    909
    is no longer a separate mine. Its shaft has been used as the upcast shaft for Chilton Colliery, which is at present closed owing to lack of trade. I am unable to say when this latter colliery is likely to reopen.
    Mr. JENNINGS: Has the colliery closed down owing to the depression in the iron and steel industry?
    Mr. FOOT: I understand that that is certainly one of the main causes.
    Mr. JENNINGS: Will the Secretary for Mines bring that answer to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure Windlestone was not an export colliery?
    Mr. FOOT: It was concerned, I understand, with the export trade, but I suppose the depression in the iron and steel trade would have a considerable effect upon it.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion went to export and what went to the home trade?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that our exports are down 20,000,000 tons?
    HON. MEMBERS: Quota.

    STOCKS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if the stocks of coal in the various parts of Great Britain on 1st October, 1931, exceed the stocks of 1st October, 1930; and will he say what is the average of stocks for the last five years?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am informed that the stocks of coal at mines in Great Britain on the 1st October, 1931, amounted to 8,050,000 tons, as compared with 6,187,000 tons on 1st October, 1930. The average amount of stocks at this date during the years 1927 to 1930 was 5,071,000 tons.

    NYSTAGMUS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is in a position to state the number of mine workers who have been refused employment underground owing to having drawn compensation for nystagmus?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I regret that this information is not available. As it is improbable that colliery companies keep a record of applicants for employment and of the reasons why employment is refused, I am afraid that the information could not be obtained with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men suffering from this disease have to declare before they are signed on, and that consequently the figures could be obtained in that way?
    Mr. FOOT: The only figures available to the Department are those which are set out in the report for 1930. The hon. Gentleman is probably acquainted with those figures. This is the only reliable information which we have upon the matter.

    EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. DAVID DAVIESasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the causes of the colliery explosions that have taken place in this country during the last 10 years;
    (2) the number of separate colliery explosions in this country for the last 10 years to date, and the total number of persons killed?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: As these questions involve a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the answer to them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    During the 10 years 1921 to 1930 there were 136 separate colliery explosions involving loss of life, the total number of deaths being 433. The causes of these explosions were as follow:

    Naked lights

    61

    Matches or smoking

    11

    Shotfiring

    26

    Electricity

    16

    Safety Lamps being in defective condition, illegally opened, etc.

    7

    Underground fire

    1

    Miscellaneous and Unknown

    14

    EXPORT TRADE (FRANCE).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that imports of coal from this country into France as from the 1st December,

    911
    1931, are to be further restricted to 72 per cent. of the average imports for the three years 1928, 1929, and 1930; and can he now state the result of the representations made by his Department to the French Government on this matter?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the reduced quota applies to coal imported into France by other countries as well as by the United Kingdom. In this respect, therefore, there is no discrimination against this country, and, as is implied in the statement made on 16th November by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) the question of making representations does not arise. I presume, however, that the hon. Member has in mind the representations which have recently been addressed to the French Government with regard to the 15 per cent. Surtax. No reply has yet been received to these representations.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea how many mine workers will be unemployed as a result of the recent action on the part of the French Government?
    Mr. FOOT: I think that some estimate could be given as to the reduced tonnage, but, as to the comparative unemployment caused, I could give no exact estimate.
    Mr. LAWSON: Was this one of the subjects raised with the French Government representatives who were over here this week end?

    SIR ERNEST GOWERS (AMALGAMATIONS).
    Mr. KIRKWOOD (for Mr. McGOVERN)asked the Secretary for Mines if the appointment of Sir Ernest Gowers for work in connection with coal mines amalgamation still continues; and how many amalgamations have been completed?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, one amalgamation has been completed, and two more are now before the Railway and Canal Commission.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is not that a very poor result for the efforts of such a highly qualified person as Sir Ernest Gowers was reported to be?
    Mr. FOOT: Sir Ernest Cowers has done a great deal of work in surveying the whole field. He has visited every mining district in the country in the course of his survey and has also visited every area in company with the members of the Commission.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wonder if the Minister could tell us if it was true that Montagu Norman instructed the last Minister of Mines—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE TRADE.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will postpone making any arrangements with the Dominions for inter-Imperial trade until he is in a position to explain to them our own agricultural policy, in order that the requirements of British agricultural producers in our own home markets shall not be overlooked?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): My hon. and gallant Friend can rest assured that in connection with any proposals to be made to the Dominions for the extension of inter-Imperial trade due regard will be had to the interests of home agricultural producers.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Mr. Bruce that priority to British agriculture should be given in our home market before anything else; and what agricultural representative will the right hon. Gentleman have to guide him?
    Mr. THOMAS: I agree with the answer I have given.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Cabinet so that a statement of agricultural policy may be made in this country and at the Imperial Conference at the earliest possible moment?

    EMPIRE SHOP, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether only samples are being sold in the shop opened by the Empire Marketing Board in Lord Street, Liverpool; and whether the attendance and interest of the public has come up to expectations?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Sales in this Empire shop are, as always, strictly limited to samples, and the size and nature of these samples have been agreed with the representative retail organisations concerned. The facts that 14,000 samples were sold and an exceptional number of trade inquiries received within 10 days of the shop's opening will, I am sure, satisfy my hon. Friend as to the keen public interest which the shop has aroused.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to keep the shop open for some time?
    Mr. THOMAS: I hope before the House adjourns to give the country some information on the magnificent results of this experiment.

    ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Mr. PEATasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the average value per month of the current year of the total imports included in No. 1 Order, 1931, Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties); what is the proportion this value bears to the total value of imports under Class III for the same period; and what was the value of the same imports, respectively, during the first and second 10-day periods of November?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that it is not possible to furnish my hon. Friend with all the information he asks for in this question, but I hope to be able to put before the House adequate statistical information of the kind in question during the Debate on the Resolution which is down for next Friday.
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been found necessary, following upon the passage of the Abnormal Importations
    914
    (Customs Duties) Act, to engage additional officials; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Gorbals last Wednesday, the passage of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act has so far involved no increase in the staff of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. HARRIS: What is the need, therefore, for the extra buildings for this purpose, if there is no staff to occupy them?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know of no extra buildings that have been required.
    Dr. SALTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any drawback is granted from the duties imposed under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act in the case of a firm importing wrapping paper and exporting the same in the form of made-up paper bags?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on Tuesday last to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris).
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of drawbacks for re-exports in connection with all the different goods in his schedules in order to safeguard the entrepôt business of this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the Act provision is already made to deal with such goods.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that that does not cover goods in transit? This is a drawback.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to continue to issue lists of tariffs under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act during the Parliamentary Recess; and can he assure the House that no delay will be caused by lack of Customs officials?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is nothing in this Act which stands in the way of an Order being made at any time, if the

    915
    circumstances require it. I understand that the Customs do not anticipate any difficulty in the administration of further Orders owing to lack of staff.
    Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increasing amount of manufactured cotton goods and yarns coming into this country, he is prepared to consider the inclusion of these goods in the next list of imports upon which duties are to be levied, with a view to protecting the interests of the Lancashire cotton industry?
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increase in price of tinplate bars produced in South Wales, from £4 12s. 6d. to £5 a ton, which followed the abandonment of the Gold Standard, he will refrain from adding to the price of imported steel bars used for tinplate manufacture by the imposition of a duty?
    Miss PICKFORDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the imposition of a duty on women's wearing apparel made from woollen and worsted tissues, seeing that the duty already imposed on such tissues under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) (No. 1) Order can be evaded by sending them in as made-up garments?
    Mr. M. W. BEAUMONTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the increased importations from abroad of tennis racquets, tennis racquet frames, and gut, which are sold in this country at below cost prices; and whether he will consider the desirability of a duty to protect British trade in these articles?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether his attention has been called to the quantities of made-up garments imported into this country, while at the same time numbers of persons engaged in this trade in Birmingham and Manchester are unemployed; and if he will take an early opportunity to bring the industry under the operation of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931;
    (2) whether he is aware that large consignments of foreign agricultural and garden tools have been brought into Bir-
    916
    mingham during the past week; and if he proposes to issue an Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act in the interests of British manufacturers and workpeople engaged in this industry?
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the rural industry of basket-making has been crippled by foreign competition, he will consider the advisability of imposing import duties on foreign baskets coming into England and so stimulate employment in agricultural areas?
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction of the paper-making trade that the new duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act only applies to packing and wrapping paper; and whether he will consider the application of this duty to all paper, irrespective of weight, which is being imported into this country in abnormal quantities?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether seeing that the total number of square yards of cotton yarns and manufactures imported into the United Kingdom during the whole year 1921 was only 22,082,185 square yards and in the 10 months up to 31st October, 1931, 40,599,239 square yards, he will take immediate action under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?
    Mr. CROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there have been curtailments by British buyers of deliveries of cotton blankets of British manufacture owing to the importation of foreign cotton blankets; and whether, in view of this, he will include these goods in an early Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer hon. Members to the reply given on the 25th November to the hon. Members for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and South-East Leeds (Major Milner).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: Will the right hon Gentleman be able to make a definite announcement with regard to the cotton trade before the House rises?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    An HON. MEMBER: Get on, or get out.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why Yorkshire in the woollen industry should have a preference over Lancashire seeing that Lancashire is so emphatic on this matter?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that an answer a fortnight old is not good enough for Lancashire, and that Lancashire will insist on having an answer very soon?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds a dumping duty was imposed upon cardboard for boxes and cartons, seeing that such cardboard is the raw material of a considerable manufacturing and export industry; and will he consider the propriety of cancelling the 50 per cent. duty?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A duty was imposed on certain packing and wrapping paper because goods of that class were being imported in abnormal quantities. Any representations regarding the effect of the duty will, of course, receive consideration.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why the manufacture of cardboard for boxes and cartons should he selected for a penalising tariff on their raw material, more particularly when that raw material cannot be supplied in adequate quantities?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only the Socialist party believe that this country is not capable of making these goods?
    Mr. FLANAGANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the exemption given to overseas territories in respect of the operation of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, any special steps will be taken and, if so, of what nature to ensure that Foreign products are not imported through the Dominions or Colonies to this country; and, if so, what form of certificate of origin will be insisted on?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The exemp-
    918
    tion of Empire products from the duties in question will be subject to the same regulations as those which have been in force with slight modifications ever since the inception of Imperial Preference in 1919. They are set out in full in the notice of 1st February, 1926, to Importers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to Exporters in other parts of the British Empire, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade why valves, permanent magnets, and batteries have been excluded from the application of the 50 per cent. import duty applicable to wireless sets and component parts thereof; and if he intends to bring these articles under the next Abnormal Imports order to be issued by the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would remind my hon. Friend that wireless valves and permanent magnets are already subject to duty under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, as amended by the Finance Act, 1926. For the rest, I would refer him to the reply given on Wednesday last to the hon. Members for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and South-East Leeds (Major Milner).
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade if, and when, a second list of duties under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act will be issued?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) No. 2 Order was issued last night.

    YUGOSLAVIA.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Government of Yugoslavia have promulgated a new Act prohibiting the importation of goods which can he produced in that country; if he will state what were the principal classes of goods exported to Yugoslavia from Great Britain in 1930–31 and their approximate value; and what was the value of the goods imported from Yugoslavia in the same year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Yugoslavia Government is under the control of the French Government and will he made representations to the French Government on the subject?
    Following is the answer:
    Enquiries made of His Majesty's Legation at Belgrade indicate that no law exists in Yugoslavia imposing a general prohibition on the importation of goods which can be produced in that country. As regards the second and third parts of the question, United Kingdom exports to Yugoslavia in 1930 were to the total value of £1,159,000 approximately, the principal classes included being cotton yarns and piece goods, valued at about £380,000; coal, coke and manufactured fuel, about £144,000; and machinery and parts thereof, about £99,000. Imports into the United Kingdom from Yugoslavia were to the total value of about £708,000 during the same period.

    FOREIGN TARIFFS (BRITISH GOODS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade which countries have, since the introduction into this House of the Abnormal Importations Bill, indicated their intention of imposing new or additional duties on British imports; and will he name the articles affected?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware no country has expressed the intention of taking action on the lines indicated in the question since the introduction of the Bill.

    CHINA.
    Captain CAZALETasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information or figures as to the exports from this country to China during the last six months or to the most convenient date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the domestic exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom registered during the six months ended the 30th September, 1931, as consigned to China
    920
    (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories) was £3,449,000. My hon. and gallant Friend will find, in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," particulars of the exports of certain commodities to China, in some cases including Hong Kong, amounting in the aggregate to about 40 per cent. of the value of the total exports to these countries.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these imports have increased during the past few weeks or months, owing to the boycott of Japanese goods?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say what has been the cause, but there has been an increase in the imports.

    IRON AND STEEL AND COTTON INDUSTRIES.
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any report of abnormal imports of iron and steel manufactures during the last four weeks?
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade if be has received any recent reports that the imports into this country of foreign yarns and cotton piece goods are abnormal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The latest available figures of the imports of the commodities referred to are under consideration.
    Sir H. CROFT: In view of the fact that the October imports exceed the September imports by 55,000 tons and that on the evidence, which appears to be accurate, there is a still further increase, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the great urgency of this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That fact and all other facts are under consideration.
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any statement to the House on the iron and steel situation before the adjournment for the Recess?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. KI RKWOOD: I do not think it is fair, Mr. Speaker, pressing the Minister in this way.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. LEWIS JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the lapse of time, it is possible for summarised figures of the recent census of production to be published forthwith, showing for each of the main divisions of industry the percentages that exports and imports, respectively, bear to the total production?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The first of a series of preliminary trade reports on the results of the 1930 Census of Production will be published in the Board of Trade Journal of the 10th December. This report will deal with the heavy iron and steel trades and will include a comparison of production with imports and exports. Similar reports on other trades will be published as quickly as the work of collecting outstanding returns, and examining and tabulating the returns received, permits.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to put side by side with our own production of iron and steel the production of the United States and Germany?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that is not possible in the publication of the 10th of December.

    FRANCE.
    Mr. COCKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether considering the French Government has levied a duty of 15 per cent. against British goods on the ground that the British pound has depreciated and, further, considering that the franc has depreciated by 80 per cent. and the pound by less than 25 per cent., he will consider arming the Government with bargaining powers by imposing a duty of 70 per cent. on imports from France?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) and Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) on 19th and 23rd November respectively.

    COCOA PRICES.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council has yet obtained an explanation from the firms concerned why the retail price of proprietary
    922
    brands of cocoa and the retail price of loose cocoa have only fallen 12½ per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, during the period when the wholesale price of Accra cocoa has fallen 40 per cent.?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): As I told my hon. Friend last week I have asked the Food Council to investigate this matter and they now have it under inquiry. My hon. Friend will realise that an inquiry involves not only consideration of the details mentioned in the question but equally relevant factors such as wages, transport and overhead costs.

    WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).
    Mr. COCKSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the arms and war material exported from this country to China and Japan, respectively, during the years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and this year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the last mentioned year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are set out in detail, and it will perhaps be more convenient to publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The hon. Member will find particulars of the total declared value of the exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores from the United Kingdom during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 consigned to China and Japan, respectively, in Volume IV of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom" (pp. 308, 313). Similar particulars for the year 1930 will be published about the end of this month. As regards figures for the current year, the total declared value of the domestic exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores (except sporting guns, carbines and rifles and sporting ammunition) from the United Kingdom registered during the first 10 months of 1931 as consigned to China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories) and

    923
    Japan (including Formosa and leased territories in China) was £40,613 and £147,112, respectively.

    LEATHER IMPORTS.
    Mr. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports of box and willow calf from the 1st November up to the latest date available consigned from France; and what was the percentage increase in these figures in comparison with the same period in 1930?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports into the United Kingdom of box and willow calf dressed upper leather consigned from France are published monthly in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" and the figures for the month of November, 1930 and 1931, will be contained in the next issue to be published on the 11th December.
    Mr. GIBSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman the figures of the most recent date in November?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the accounts of trade and navigation for the month, he will find all the information lie requires.
    Mr. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the imports of chrome-tanned hide upper leather from Germany and Holland from 1st September to the latest date available, and the imports for similar periods for 1929 and 1930?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports into the United Kingdom of chrome-tanned dressed upper leather registered during the period from 1st September to 31st October, 1931, as consigned from Germany and the Netherlands amounted to 5,744 cwts., valued at £103,691, and 3,017 cwts., valued at £94,652, respectively. During the corresponding period of 1930 the imports from Germany were 1,779 cwts., valued at £41,460 and from the Netherlands 646 cwts., valued at £17,011. Similar particulars for 1929 are not available as the imports of chrome-tanned leather were not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom prior to 1930.
    Mr. GIBSON: Is not this a clear case of abnormal importation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but it is also a clear case of a raw material.

    IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS (ABOLITION).
    Mr. JAMES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade the date of the signing by this country of the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions; what classes of goods does the Convention cover; how long does it last without renewal; and what is the policy of the Government as to continuing its operation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Convention was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 8th November, 1927, and brought into force by a Protocol signed on 20th December, 1929. It remains in force for five years from 1st January, 1930, but any of the countries which still remain parties (namely, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway) may withdraw on 30th June, 1932, or on the same date in 1933, or 1934. It covers all descriptions of merchandise, but permits of prohibitions or restrictions imposed for certain purposes, such as health, and public security. The Convention, however, provided for the maintenance of certain exceptional prohibitions by particular countries, and in particular allowed of the continuance of the prohibition in force in this country of the importation of synthetic dyestuffs and analogous products. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government will consider before next June whether or not they shall remain parties to the Convention, but no decision has yet been taken on the subject.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Norway, Denmark, and France, among other countries, are importing quantities of fish into this country; and whether the import of British catches into those countries is limited by duties or in any other way?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend's question refers to sea fish either fresh or frozen. If so, the answer to the first part is that appreciable quantities of such fish are imported from Norway and Denmark, but very little from France. With regard to the second part, there is no duty or restriction upon the importation of such fish of British catch in either Norway or Denmark. In France, however, customs duties are levied, and there is also a quota system in force since October last which restricts the imports to specified quantities. Particulars of this system of restriction will be found in the issue of the "Board of Trade Journal" for 29th October. The 15 per cent. discriminatory duty on British goods applies to fish as to other goods.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the Government take into consideration the fact that France has put on a duty against this country, and that all the fish that we require can be secured in this country, and will steps be taken to place on French fish a duty equal to that which they have placed on our fish?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The balance of trade between France and ourselves, so far as fish is concerned, is considerably in our own favour.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the reasons for the non-publication of the recent Governmental inquiry into the iron and steel trades?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Prime Minister gave on this subject to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) on the 17th November, arising out of the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry).
    Mr. PERKINS: Is it not the fact that one of the reasons why this report has not been published is that both masters and men have agreed as to the need for protection of the steel industry?

    MILK IMPORTS.
    Major LEIGHTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    926
    can now say if any fresh milk is being imported into this country from the Continent; and, if so, to what extent and at what date did the importation commence?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA.: I regret that particulars of the imports of fresh milk into the United Kingdom during last month are not yet available.
    Major LEIGHTON: Would the hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the traffic manager at Liverpool Street Station and ascertain where this milk is being consigned?

    ENGINEERING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any facts indicating whether any improvement is yet taking place in the tool-making section of the engineering industry since the issue of the Order imposing duties on imported tools?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is obviously too early to reach conclusions as to the effect of an Order which only came into force last Wednesday.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not of the first importance that we should know precisely whether these duties are having an effect for good or ill; and can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he has the machinery for noting any change which takes place in the protected industries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, the matter is being watched very carefully and, as I said yesterday, as soon as there is any information, in which the House would take an interest, I shall be very glad to give it to the House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the engineering industry is in such a deplorable condition and that they are anxious to know what benefit is going to accrue from the operation of these duties, we have put down this question, but we have not got any satisfactory reply yet.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Colonel CROOKSHANKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the value of imports of cotton blankets for the three weeks preceding the 15th November as compared with the similar period for last year?
    Sir W. SMILESasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give the figures showing the increase in the pounds weight of cotton yarn imported into this country during the first fortnight of November, 1931, as compared with the pounds weight for the first fortnight of November, 1922;
    (2) if he will give the figures showing the increase of the number of yards of cotton piece goods imported into this country during the first, fortnight of November, 1931, as compared with the number of yards during the first fortnight of November, 1922?
    Mr. HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of cotton piece goods imported during the first two weeks of November and the quantity imported during the same period of last year?
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the increase in the weight of cotton yarn imported in the first fortnight of November, 1931, over that imported in the comparable period in 1922;
    (2) what is the increase in the number of yards of cotton piece goods imported in the first fortnight of November, 1931, over the imports in the comparable period in 1922?
    Mr. CROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade the total quantity of cotton piece goods of all descriptions imported into this country during the first 14 days, or such period as may be convenient, of the current month, and the figures for the comparable period in 1924?
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imports of cotton quilts for three weeks preceding 14th November, as compared with the similar period last year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given on Tuesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Herbert) respecting statistics for shorter periods than one month. Particulars of the imports of cotton yarns and piece goods in considerable detail are published monthly in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," and figures
    928
    for the whole month of November, with comparable data for each of the past two years, will be published on the 11th December.
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during 10 months of this year, 78,000,000 square yards of cotton piece goods have been imported into this country and that that is the reason why our mills in Lancashire are lying idle to-day?
    Mr. HACKING: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman can give these figures for the first 10 days of the month, only six days after the expiration of that period, why can he not give us the figures for the first fortnight of the month, at the end of the month?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assure my right hon. Friend that it is not a difficulty which I have created for the purpose, but I cannot press the officials of the Department to give me their figures at intervals of a few days. It adds greatly to the work, and I give the figures as soon as we can make any use of them.
    Mr. HACKING: In view of the fact that there has been 100 per cent. increase in the importation of these goods, since 1924, surely the right hon. Gentleman thinks it time to take action?
    Sir W. SMILES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the terrible unemployment in Lancashire is principally due to the dumping of foreign cotton cloth?
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures showing the quantity of cotton piece goods made in this country exported to Europe and re-imported in a dyed, bleached, or finished condition into this country and/or reexported abroad?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer.
    The information desired by my hon. Friend is not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom. The trade statistics of other principal manufacturing countries have therefore been examined and only in the cases of

    929
    the Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium are relevant particulars available. During 1930 the total quantity of cotton piece goods imported into the Netherlands and Switzerland from the United Kingdom for bleaching, dyeing, finishing etc. was 13,739 cwts. and 13,792 cwts. respectively. No information is available as to the quantity subsequently re-exported from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom but 667 ewts. were returned to this country from Switzerland the remainder being re-exported to other countries.
    With regard to Belgium, the latest year for which information is in my possession is 1928. In that year the total quantity of cotton piece goods imported into the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union from the United Kingdom "for improvement" was 10,568 cwts. I am unable to state what proportion was ultimately re-exported to this country.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICKasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the imports of cotton piece-goods of all classes from the United States of America as well as from Europe for the period in 1931 for which he has actual or even approximate figures, as corn-pared with the similar period during 1930, 1920, 1928, and 1927?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total imports into the United Kingdom of cotton piece goods of all kinds registered during the first 10 months of 1931, as consigned from the United States and Europe (excluding the Irish Free State) amounted to 4,773,000 square yards valued at £170,000 and 60,068,000 square yards valued at £3,291,000 respectively. The particulars for the corresponding periods of each of the four preceding years are not readily available but my hon. Friend will find particulars of the imports of cotton piece goods during each of the calendar years 1927 to 1930, consigned from the United States and the principal European countries, in Volume II of the Annual Statement of Trade for 1930.

    SHIPPING (OBSOLETE TONNAGE).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the committee investigating the question of obsolete tonnage may be expected?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The report in question was issued in May last as a Stationery Office publication and arrangements were made for copies to be available for Members at the Vote Office.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: In view of the disastrous position of the shipbuilding industry, is it the intention of the Board of Trade to take any action in regard to that report?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer a question of that kind without notice.

    SEED-CRUSHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON (for Sir FRANK SANDERSON)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the amount of unemployment prevailing in the seed-crushing industry and the greatly increased imports of foreign-made vegetable oils during the past six months, he will consider taking such immediate steps as are necessary to safeguard this industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no power to impose a duty on imported vegetable oils, as they are not comprised in Class III of the Import and Export List.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the extra imports, the abnormal imports, of last month were £4,000 more than for the same month of last year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know the exact amount by which they were more than the imports last year.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps are being taken by the Empire Marketing Board to avoid use by foreign interests of the Buy British campaign?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Empire Marketing Board have been careful to refrain from issuing publicity material which might be open to misleading use in respect of particular products, or which might facilitate any evasion of existing legal provisions in regard to the descrip-

    931
    tion of goods offered for sale. If, however, the hon. Member is aware of any instances of abuse, I should be grateful if he would communicate with me.

  BRITISH MIGRANTS, AUSTRALIA.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the steps he is taking to aleviate the conditions of British migrants in Australia?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I can only add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 16th November, that the various organisations which provide Aftercare for United Kingdom migrants in Australia are receiving grants to assist them in their work, and that the Commonwealth Government are being asked to cooperate with a view to the effective maintenance of aftercare arrangements.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the Black Boy district of Western Australia the unemployed who are taken there are deprived of all civil rights, and the alternative is starvation?
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not know any of those details, but from the moment, now over 12 months ago, that my attention was drawn to the unfortunate position, I took all the steps in my power to give assistance. The present Government are continuing in that direction, but it is fair to emphasise the fact that the responsibility does not rest with us. It is Australia's responsibility. I desire to make that perfectly clear.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The unemployed in this country left these islands in large numbers. Some went to America and some to Australia. Now we are told—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—that those who are coming back from America and who took up citizenship there are not allowed here—
  HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask a question.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to
  932
  give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment to-night.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that—
  HON. MEMBERS: It is to be raised on the Adjournment.

  COMPANY LAW.
  Mr. FLANAGANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to compel public limited companies to disclose in their balance sheets the full amount of any secret or hidden reserve?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot promise to introduce amending legislation, but my hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted for investigation when the question of the amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to delay the amending legislation until another financial disaster occurs and the public have lost more money?
  Mr. POTTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that events in the Criminal Courts and elsewhere have shown that the Companies Act of 1929 has failed to protect the public against unscrupulous persons working behind limited liability; and whether, seeing that in addition to the flaws in the Act revealed in the Criminal Courts a number of constructive suggestions for amendments of other defects have been forwarded to the Board of Trade, he will consider setting up a Departmental Committee to amend the Act?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: For the reason given in my answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) and Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) on the 24th November, I do not think that the time is ripe for a fresh inquiry.
  Mr. SMITHERS: In view of recent developments as disclosed in recent trials, is there not ample evidence to show that there are weak spots in this Act, and would it not be well for a Departmental Committee to inquire and see if these holes can be stopped?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that a special inquiry is necessary. The Companies Department of the Board of Trade is keeping an eye on all these developments.

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in regard to the projected Imperial Conference, he is prepared to invite preliminary discussion with industrial and commercial organisations in this country as to the economic basis of future inter-Empire relations?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The usual practice of consulting industrial and commercial organisations in this country will be followed as occasion arises. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and I are already in consultation and I am in touch with certain of these organisations in regard to particular questions that may be considered at the Conference.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance to the House that no preference will be granted to any foreign country until after the Imperial Conference?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the number of the working classes now compelled to pay Income Tax under the provisions of the supplementary Budget of August last and to the hardship involved in the payment thereof by this new class of taxpayer, he will be prepared to consider suggestions for the payment of these Income Tax liabilities by monthly instalments?
    Major ELLIOT: In the case of manual wage earners who are chargeable to tax by way of half-yearly assessment, the taxpayer may spread the payment of his tax over a period of 13 weeks by paying his tax weekly by means of stamps in accordance with the arrangement that is explained on the Notice of Assessment.
    934
    In the case of other employés the tax is payable in two instalments of three quarters on 1st January and one quarter on 1st July and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 19th November to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) in which my right hon. Friend dealt with the question of accepting payment by instalments in cases of hardship.
    Mr. GIBSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now proposed, in view of the decision of the General Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the City of London allowing the appeal of an association against the refusal of the Board of Inland Revenue to allow deduction from the Income Tax returns of companies and business firms of expenditure incurred by them in connection with applications under the Safeguarding of Industries rules, to allow deduction on account of expenses borne by an individual firm in putting its case before an inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, if so, whether the Income Tax officials will be informed accordingly?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 14th May last to questions on this subject. If he has in mind any case which has not been dealt with in the manner indicated in this answer, perhaps he would be good enough to let me have particulars.
    Mr. GIBSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the answer of 11th May it was stated that associations would be allowed expenses for Income Tax purposes? Is he prepared to recommend that the same treatment be meted out and the same facilities given to private firms as to associations of firms in respect of expenses being allowed for Income Tax purposes?
    Major ELLIOT: I require notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of incorporating in the Budget of 1932 a provision by which a man, with an invalid wife whom he has to support, may claim a housekeeper's allowance for Income Tax purposes?
    Major ELLIOT: All relevant matters will be taken into account in framing the

    935
    Budget statement. My hon. and gallant Friend will not, however, I am sure, expect me to anticipate that statement.

    COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total amount of capital commitments sanctioned by the Treasury for loans the interest on which falls to be paid by the British taxpayer, though the works of development for which the loans were sanctioned are outside Great Britain?
    Major ELLIOT: The capital sum involved in schemes of this character is approximately £4,100,000. The obligation of the Treasury to make interest grants is limited in each case to a term of years and does not exceed in total £568,000. Practically all the schemes originated under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Treasury still committed to an expenditure of £2,500,000, in Palestine to buy the land, for the making of railways in East Africa, and the construction of the Zambesi Bridge?
    Major ELLIOT: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires those particulars I could furnish them, but I could not give them to him from memory.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What check is the Treasury exercising upon these schemes before the money is actually wasted?
    Major ELLIOT: I could not accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion that the money is wasted.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What about the Zambesi Bridge?
    Major ELLIOT: I could not accept the suggestion that the money is wasted.

    BEER DUTY.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the returns furnished to the Customs Department of the consumption of beer, distinction is made between supplies to clubs and supplies to places of public refreshment; and whether he is aware of the serious effect of the existing beer taxation on the well-being of all club life?
    Major ELLIOT: No returns of the consumption of beer are furnished to the Customs and Excise Department, and therefore no statistics are available drawing the distinction suggested in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I am aware of the serious effect which heavy taxation is having at present in every branch of life.
    Lord APSLEY: When the duty on beer is reduced will the Government give considerable preference to those breweries that use British malting barley?
    Colonel BALDWIN-WEBBasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of duty collected on beer brewed in England and Wales and Northern Ireland for the month of October, 1931, as compared with October, 1930; and what is the average gravity?
    Major ELLIOT: The figures for duty assessed on brewings during the month are as follow:

    —

    Amount of duty assessed.

    Average gravity.

    £

    Beer brewed in October, 1930.

    5,632,000

    1042·72

    Beer brewed in October, 1931.

    5,702,000

    1039·74

    Beer duty is not collected until the following month, and complete figures of duty actually collected in November in respect of brewings during October, 1931, are not yet available.

    STERLING (DEPRECIATION).
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in consequence of the depreciation of the pound to approximately 15s. the cost of importing primary products has increased; and what steps the Government propose to take to maintain the internal purchasing power of the pound?
    Major ELLIOT: There are many factors other than the exchange value of the pound which affect the price level of imported commodities and wholesale prices generally have not risen in this country in proportion to the depreciation of the pound. In reply to the latter part of the question, I cannot add to previous statements.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in consequence of the depreciation of the pound to approximately 15s., the effective currency in circulation has been deflated by a substantial amount; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to counteract the deflation that has taken place?
    Major ELLIOT: The depreciation of the exchange rates on gold standard countries is not so immediately connected with the movements of the purchasing power of the pound in home markets as the question would imply. The latter part of the question does not therefore arise.

  LAND VALUATION.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any, and if so, what, instructions have been issued to the valuers engaged in the valuation of land under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, that the valuations shall proceed on a gold or a sterling basis?
  Major ELLIOT: No special instructions have been issued. These valuations would naturally be expressed in terms of sterling.
  Mr. LAMBERT: In view of the fact that the pound is fluctuating in value and that this land valuation cannot take effect until 1933, will the Treasury suspend this perfectly useless procedure?
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the total value of land for the purposes of the Land Values Tax does not depend upon the agricultural value, and whether the agricultural value does not depend in turn on the agricultural policy of the Government?

  OVERSEAS LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that money has been lost by British investors in overseas loans owing to default by the borrowers; and whether he will request the advisory committee of the Board of Trade to set up an examining body, to include members of their own committee, the Stock Exchange
  938
  Council, and the Bankers' Association, to whom all issuing houses shall be required by law to submit proposed invitations to the public to subscribe prior to any issue of an overseas loan in the United Kingdom being permitted?
  Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Sir J. FERGUSON: Is it not a fact that a careful computation which has been made of the loss of British savings by these oversea loans over a period of years has put the total at no less Shan £2,000,000,000.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    LOWER GRADES (WAGES).
    Mr. COCKSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when it is proposed to increase the wages of the lower grades of the Civil Service, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    Major ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation from the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council on the subject of the remuneration of civil servants this morning. I am not able at present to make any statement on the matter.

    TYPEWRITERS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what percentage of the typewriters in use in Government offices are British made; and whether all replacements are of British manufacture?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer the Noble Lord to the answer given on the 26th November to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).

  REGISTRATION OFFICERS.
  Major COLFOXasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to make cuts in the remuneration of registration designated officers for the work already done by them in preparing the 1931 register in addition to the cuts imposed under the new scale of remuneration of 1st April, 1931?
  Major ELLIOT: No, Sir, it is not intended to make a further cut in the remuneration for the preparation of the 1931 register.
  Major COLFOX: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider differentiating in the remuneration between those officers who work in rural districts with a widely scattered population and those who work in densely populated areas?
  Major ELLIOT: I require notice of that question.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (TARIFFS).
  Mr. MANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Government to urge the members of the League of Nations to carry out immediately the unanimous resolution of the Economic Conference of the League of Nations in 1927 that the time had come to reduce tariffs; and what steps are being taken in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I informed my hon. Friend on Tuesday last, His Majesty's Government will take advantage of any opportunity for securing reductions in foreign customs tariffs. I doubt, however, whether a general request to members of the League of Nations to reduce their tariffs would serve any useful purpose at present.
  Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether a single reduction in any tariff of any European country has taken place since the proposal was made at the Economic Conference at Geneva?
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the prominent part that my right hon. Friend played at that conference, does he not think it desirable to take some general initiative in the matter?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    MECHANISATION (COST).
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has yet ascertained the comparative cost of the new armoured-car regiments with the mounted cavalry regiments; and, if so, how do the costs compare?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The annual cost of a cavalry armoured-car regiment exceeds that of a horsed cavalry regiment by between 5 and 10 per cent., the figure depending on the life of the cars, as to which sufficient experience is not yet available to give a firm estimate.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when mechanisation was first introduced, one of the reasons given for it was that it would be cheaper than the mounted branches of the service; and is it the case that that promise has not been fulfilled?

    PAY (DEPRECIATED CURRENCY).
    Major COLFOXasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether those officers and other ranks who are serving abroad in places such as Hong Kong, where the value of sterling has depreciated in comparison to local currency and who have thus suffered an automatic reduction of pay, and have also been subjected to the standard reductions which have fallen on all ranks of the Army, can in any way be safeguarded against this double cut?
    Mr. COOPER: This matter is being considered.

    CADET CORPS.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed by the Government to renew the grant to the cadet corps?
    Mr. COOPER: His Majesty's Government have decided to reverse the decision which was taken in March, 1930, and to accord official recognition to the British National Cadet Association. In the present circumsances of stringency, however, His Majesty's Government have not felt able to accept any financial liability. The British National Cadet Association have gratefully accepted this decision, the details of which will appear from correspondence which has passed between the War Office and the Association. This correspondence will be published and I am having a copy placed in the Library. The necessary regulations will be prepared and issued to all concerned.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Would it not be a good thing to divert the needless

    941
    expenditure on land taxation valuation into this honourable course?

    BANDS (CIVILIAN ENGAGEMENTS).
    Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the unemployment amongst musicians, few of whom are entitled to unemployment benefit, he will issue instructions restraining service bands from accepting municipal engagements at health and pleasure resorts?
    Mr. COOPER: Military bands are permitted to accept civil engagements because there is a public demand for their services, and are not permitted to do so on terms which are lower than those which would be offered in the same circumstances to a civilian band. I see no reason for altering the present policy in this matter.
    Sir A. BEIT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the plight of these musicians is considerably worse now than it was when the matter was last raised, on account of the advent of talking pictures; and will he not therefore reverse his decision?
    Mr. COOPER: I cannot hold out any hope of the decision being reversed.

  COUNTY BOROUGHS (ELECTIONS).
  Dr. HILLMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that if a candidate duly nominated for election for a vacancy in a ward of a county borough dies before polling day, the corporation must apply to the High Court for authority to conduct a new election, and that the costs arising from this are heavy; and whether he will take steps to simplify the procedure in such a manner as to save this drain upon the local rates?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): Yes, Sir; there will probably be general agreement that the law needs amendment in this respect, and the point has been noted for legislation when a suitable opportunity offers.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL, CARLISLE).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary the approximate value of the property owned by the State in respect
  942
  to the drink trade management scheme at Carlisle, and the total profits for the last financial year?
  Sir H. SAMUEL: The information required by the hon. Member will be found in the accounts appended to the Annual Report on the State Management Districts for the year ended 31st March, 1931 (H.C. 136 of 1931), of which I am sending him a copy.

  WAGES.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to see that the men and women employed in the industries which receive the benefit of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act will be secured proper trade union wages and conditions?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I do not contemplate any interference with the existing machinery for the settlement of working conditions in such industries.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister not aware that, as the result of the protection which is going on, the prices of the necessaries of life are bound to rise, and that the workers will require higher wages; and is he going to lend his support to the working class in order that they may secure better conditions?

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (CONCILIATION MACHINERY).
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the orders lost to British ship-repair yards by lower costs and greater despatch in certain foreign ports, he will consider calling together employés and employers in this industry with the object, by mutual agreement, of suspending the present codification in the regulations defining craftsmen's work, which has been a contributory cause to some of these lost orders?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: There is joint machinery in the shipbuilding and repair industry for the discussion by employers' and workers' representatives of matters such as that to which my hon. Friend refers, and it is not necessary, therefore, for me to take steps to call them together.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF SCHEMES).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour the number of local authorities which have been instructed to discontinue schemes for the relief of unemployment; and the approximate value of the schemes which have been abandoned?
  Sir H. BETTERTON: No such instructions have been issued by my Department or by the Ministry of Health.

  AGRICULTURE (ALLOTMENTS).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Agriculture the total expenditure in aid of allotments used by unemployed persons; and how many men have had allotments placed at their disposal?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the hon. Member for Monmouth as chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if, in view of the present economic position of the country, he will arrange that only Empire wine and tobacco are consumed in the House of Commons?
  Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON (for Sir LEOLIN FORESTIERWALKER): The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
  Mr. MANDER: Does not my hon. Friend think that Members of this House are prepared to make some sacrifice in order to put the balance of trade right?
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: The Kitchen Committee supply Empire wines and tobacco for those who wish to consume them.

  ANGLO-FRENCH WEST AFRICAN CONVENTION.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-French Convention in respect of Nigeria and the Gold Coast can now be revised; and what action the Government propose to take?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The Anglo-French West African Convention of 1898 as a whole is not subject to revision. Article 9 of the Convention, which my hon. and gallant Friend doubtless has in mind, could, however, be terminated by either party on giving a year's notice of denunciation. The position is under consideration, but I am unable to make any statement at present.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does not my hon. Friend consider that it would be to the advantage of this country that those British Colonies should give a preference for British goods over foreign goods?
  Mr. EDEN: That may be so, but I cannot add anything to what I have said.

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (MODEL BY-LAWS).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities which have adopted the Ministry's model by-laws 9a and 9b, respectively, in regard to the slaughter of animals?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The numbers are: model by-law 9(a), 145; and model by-law 9(b), 416.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to how the model by-laws are actually working in the various parts of the country?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I have no information to the effect that they are working ill. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question.

  HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the last report on the subject of mui-tsai in Hong Kong was received; and whether the one which was due in June last has been received and is available to Members?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The report for the six months ended 31st May was received in July. I am arranging for a copy of it to be placed in the Library.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any fresh statement to make in regard to the business for Friday.
Mr. BALDWIN: In addition to the Motion approving the first Order made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, it is proposed to put down a Motion approving the Order made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

FALL IN THE POUND.
Mr. MAXTON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the very heavy fall in the last 24 hours in the value of the pound and the failure of the Government to cope with the situation."
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that Motion could not certainly come under Standing Order No. 10. It does not seem to be at all applicable to that Order—not in the way that I interpret it.
Mr. MAXTON: I am bound to accept your Ruling if you insist on it, but it seems to me that the matter is urgent, that it is definite, and that it is of considerable public importance, and, as far as I know the business of the House, there is no other means that the House has open to it to have this matter brought before it in the next few days.
Mr. SPEAKER: The latter part of the Motion is in the form of a Vote of Censure on the Government, and there is an occasion for that in the next few days.
Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to press this unduly, but, assuming that the situation becomes definitely worse than it is to-day, shall I be in order in moving this again to-morrow, in the hope that you may take a different view of the situation then?
Mr. SPEAKER: Not in this particular form, because there is no Minister who is responsible for this situation.
Mr. D. M. MASON: If this is an urgent matter of very grave importance and 40
946
Members ask for it, will you not consider it, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have only certain powers under Standing Order No. 10, and this is obviously a Motion which does not come under that Order.
Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: If it is the wish of Members to direct the attention of the House to a serious matter of this kind, what means are there open to hon. Members to do so?
Mr. SPEAKER: A Motion can be put on the Order Paper, for which, I am sure, the Government would give time.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if this is not urgent and definite and of public importance, and on which ground do you turn it down?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to argue the meanings of those several words. I have given my Ruling that it does not come under Standing Order No. 10, and that I cannot allow it.
Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the Government are absolutely responsible, in consequence of going off the Gold Standard, and surely there must be some Motion to deal with that situation?
Mr. SPEAKER: The responsibility of the Government, happily for me, is not one of the things that I must decide.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  REPORT [30th November].
  Resolution reported;

FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES).
"That—
(1) There shall be charged, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution, on the importation into the United Kingdom of any articles to which this Resolution applies such duties of customs as are hereinafter provided;
(2) The articles to which this Resolution applies are articles of any of the descriptions specified in the Table annexed to this Resolution to which the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has by order applied any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution;
(3) The customs duties to be charged as aforesaid in respect of any articles—
(a) shall be such duties as may be specified in an order made by the Minister under the said Act not exceeding one hundred per cent, of the value of the artcles:
Provided that in the case of articles to be charged to duty otherwise than by reference to value, the value thereof for the purpose of the foregoing limitation shall be taken to be the wholesale price, as determined by the Minister, of articles of that description prevailing at the corresponding period in the preceding year; and
(b) may be charged by reference to value, weight, measurement, or quantity, as may be provided in the order; and
(c) shall be charged for such periods and may be charged at such different rates for such different parts of any period as may be so provided;
(4) The Act aforesaid shall continue in force for a period of twelve months from the passing thereof and no longer;
(5) Any order made by the said Minister as aforesaid shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a Resolution of this House;
Provided that in reckoning any such period as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which this House is adjourned for more than four days;
(6) The Act aforesaid may include such incidental and consequential provisions as may be necessary or expedient in relation to the matters aforesaid.

TABLE.
Fresh Fruits.
currants, gooseberries, grapes plums, strawberries.
Fresh Vegetables.
Asparagus, green beans, broccoli and cauliflowers, carrots, chicory (salad), cucumbers, endive, lettuce, mushrooms, peas (green), potatoes (new), tomatoes, turnips.
Flowers, etc.
Cut flowers, plants in flower, flowers attached to bulbs, foliage, bulbs, rose trees."
Resolution read a Second time.
Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in line 6, after the word "Resolution," to insert the words:
"and in connection with which a board has been set up to administer a scheme under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931."
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that where any protection is given to the producers of any of the products mentioned in this Resolution there shall be insistence on efficiency and organisation. It is the policy of our party that where any form of assistance is given to industry or agriculture by the State it shall only be given on conditions which will ensure, firstly, that the industry is carried on efficiently; secondly, that there is due protection of the consumer; and, thirdly, that there is due protection of the interests of the workers in the industry. I am therefore moving the Amendment to ensure that this form of Protection shall not be applied to any article unless the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act which was carried this year shall have been applied and a Board has been set up for the producers in the industry.
When the Agricultural Marketing Act was before the House, there were two main points made against it by hon. Members opposite. The first, which will seem surprising to new Members of the House, was that it gave the Minister too much power. Everybody who realises what is being done in this Resolution will be surprised that such a consideration was put forward. The second objection was that it was no use organising marketing among home producers unless you first dealt with imports. That argument cropped up from time to time in the discussions on the Bill in Committee and on Report, and even survived the Third Reading. No we have Protection

959
brought in for certain agricultural products; therefore, that particular objection is done away with. Hon. Members opposite who realise the need for organisation can now support this Amendment with a clear conscience.
All experience of the condition of agriculture and of marketing in this country has made it plain that, whatever truth there may have been in the statement of hon. Gentlemen opposite that organisation among home producers was no use unless you dealt with imports, it is abundantly true that unless you organise marketing at home it will be futile merely to deal with imports. You will merely set up a cut-throat competition among producers; they will beat down the prices, and eventually ruin each other, as they have done so often in the past. I will quote from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture who, dealing with this very matter in November this year in a statement made to the Press, said:
"Whatever the future may hold by way of tariff assistance or similar measures, the restoration of prosperity for agriculture upon a lasting foundation must depend on the reorganisation of marketing on a basis of standardisation."
That is the first reason for bringing forward this Amendment. With regard to the products that are dealt with in the Resolution, you can read extract after extract from the reports of the marketing section of the Ministry of Agriculture, and, whether it deals with fruit, vegetables or flowers, you will find over and over again an insistence on the necessity for grading, standardisation and proper marketing, quite apart from the question as to whether imports are stopped or not. This Resolution is essentially Protectionist. It has been suggested that it is merely a matter of stopping certain luxury imports. I cannot accept that in the slightest degree. It is an attempt to represent this as a kind of child of the President of the Board of Trade, whose speech on luxury imports we ail remember, but behind the figure of the President of the Board of Trade is the figure of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I do not believe that this is a Measure specially designed to deal with luxuries,
960
or to redress the balance of trade and to save the pound.
4.0 p.m.
I think that those parts of the argument put forward in favour of this Motion are merely the carrots which has been put in for the benefit of Liberal Members of the Coalition. As a matter of fact, it is clear that this is a preliminary attempt at Protection. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, who was not very expansive in his reply yesterday, is an old Parliamentary hand, and he knows very well how to deal at considerable length with such questions as he needs to answer, and to avoid those which are inconvenient. But he did deal slightly with the question which has been put to him so often as to what was the real aim in this Measure. He said:
"This proposal which I am making today was, quite frankly, framed with the evident intention of dealing with those articles which could properly be described as luxury articles or which could, on the other hand, be said with equal certainty to be articles of very early production, competing upon an unfair basis with those things which we can produce in this country."
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks would be more suitable when I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." He ought to apply his arguments to the Amendment, which he is moving.
Mr. ATTLEE: With great respect, the point of this Amendment is to insist that, if there is to be any protection to the home producer, there should he in existence an organisation. There has been some debate as to whether this was a Protectionist Measure or not, or whether, as a matter of fact, it was merely intended to stop certain luxury imports. The purpose of my argument is to show that the Minister had suggested that this Measure was going to be of assistance to the home producer, and, therefore, on that I was founding my argument that it is necessary, if the home producer is to be protected, that he should also be organised. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"I should be sorry if our proposals should not have the effect of encouraging and stimulating the increased production of these things in this country. That is an essential part of this scheme, and if it fails in doing

961
that, it will fail in one of its chief purposes. It is essential to give encouragement to our people to develop their trade and industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1931; col. 896, Vol. 260.]
The right hon. Gentleman nods his head. It is the object of the Government to encourage the production of luxury products in this country. If it be desirable that you should do this, we want to see, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the trade should benefit. It is clear that if you bring in a Measure of this sort, which is not a comprehensive Protectionist Measure, but gives protection to certain articles produced by horticulturists, the immediate effect of that will be to increase the production of these particular products, and if you have no regulations and no organisation, you will get people crowding in to produce more, and create a glut in the market and a fall in price. That, of course, necessarily deals only with those products which can be produced rapidly. We did not get any explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how, in the space of 12 months, he was going to increase the production of cherries and plums. But we can leave that on one side. It is abundantly clear, however, that if without any regulation there is a sudden increase in production, so far from doing any good to the producers, it will lead them straight to ruin.
Secondly, unless you organise the producers, you are merely going to put large profits into the hands of the middlemen. In order to obtain a reasonable and remunerative price, it is essential to deal with the surplus, and all opinion, as expressed in these reports and elsewhere, and in Debates on the subject of marketing, has been that you cannot deal with a surplus adequately unless you have proper organisation. The Act which we passed last Session gave full power for the producers to organise their industry and to deal with just, those matters which are of such importance in obtaining a steady price. It gave power to deal with grading, marketing and surplus, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to work that Act at all. He seemed extremely lukewarm about it. I want that Act to be worked to its fullest possibility, and as you are here proposing, in effect, to afford very great advantages to the producers of
962
certain horticultural products, you should insist that here is the chance for obtaining organisation, and make any protection that you give dependent on a proper organisation of the producers, on proper grading, proper marketing, proper transport, proper dealing with a surplus, and, at the same time, obtain the protection which was inserted in that Act in the interests of the general public.
That is a totally different thing from the crude kind of Protection which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I do not suggest for a moment that, with regard to the duties which the right hon. Gentleman brings in here, you are affecting a very large part of agriculture. You are not. As a matter of fact, I think that he made no attempt at all to answer the points that were made with regard to the fact that, in many instances, these fruits and vegetables are actually non-competitive, that is to say, the imported article does not compete with the home article, and it is abundantly true in many cases that the home-produced article forms a luxury article. If we are to have these duties—and the Government have an overwhelming majority for these duties—I hope that Members who are really interested will see that agriculture and horticulture are established on proper lines, and will press the right hon. Gentleman to take full advantage of the powers of the Marketing Act.
The right hon. Gentleman said he was not prepared to spend any money under the Agricultural Marketing Act. He might allow it to be done, possibly, if people wanted to form a board; but I gathered that he was not going to press it, and that he was not going to have any money put into it. That is an absolutely penny wise, pound foolish way of going to work. Unless you insist on organisation, whatever advantages there may be from this will be wasted, either because of a glut, which will mean very low prices, or because the profits will go to the middlemen. Under this Resolution you are going to extract, if you can, more money from the consumer. If you do that, you ought at least to see that the nation gets some benefit out of it, and that it actually goes to the producer.
Therefore, I move this Amendment, and I hope that those Members who see that it is utterly useless to leave producers of fruits, vegetables and horticultural pro-

963
ducts in an entirely unorganised state, will support the Amendment. I do not need to labour it at length. We had very long discussions in the House in the last Parliament. There was a consensus of opinion in this House as to the vital need for organisation. The evidence goes to show that in a number of instances low prices are not the result of importation, but are the result of internal competition and disorganisation. This Amendment gives the National Government a chance to show that it really cares about the nation, and is not merely handing out sops to any of its supporters who are strong enough to make a demand for them.
Viscount WOLMER: I have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend with considerable disappointment, because he really has got hold of a big and an important principle in the Amendment, and I was hoping very much to hear from him a constructive suggestion, and to hear him deal with this problem on wider and more practical lines than the speech to which we have just listened. He has really confined himself to a few generalities, and tried to make party points by quoting speeches which many of us made in the lass Parliament. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that that is the best way to try to get what I believe he desires to see done. Many of us agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said in regard to the matter of organisation, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister would dissent from a great deal he said on that point. I would remind him that the Minister, in his opening remarks, laid stress on the importance of organisation in the agricultural industry, especially the organisation of marketing.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) in his speech has not made the slightest attempt to relate his proposals to the practical problems involved in his Amendment. This is a Financial Resolution dealing with 27 different agricultural products. Does my hon. Friend really propose to ask the Minister to set up 27 different agricultural marketing boards at once? It is clear, if any hon. Member gives his mind to the question, that it is impossible to do anything of the sort under a very long time, and the
964
hon. Member knows perfectly well that this Resolution is brought forward as a matter of urgency. The Minister has told us that it is not the full policy of the Government; it is intended only to cover those particular agricultural crops on which an immediate decision by Parliament should be made now, to enable the Minister to take action before the House is in a position to address itself to the larger agricultural policy.
My hon. Friend knows how long it takes to set up a board under the Agricultural Marketing Act. We went into that point very carefully last year, and I think he will bear me out when I say it is absolutely impossible for a board to be constituted and to start its work in less than four or five months. That being the case, there would be no possibility of dealing as a matter of urgency with any one of these 27 crops. Therefore, my reply to him is that this Amendment is quite unworkable, and I very much hope that he will not press it to a Division. He, unfortunately, has exhausted his right to speak, but I hope that one of his hon. Friends will tell us what the attitude of the Labour party really is on the main principle involved in this Amendment, because I, for one, regard it as a very important principle, and if it were put forward in a practical form, as is not the case in this Amendment, it is a principle which I think a good many Members, though not all, on this side of the House would cordially support. Are hon. Members opposite prepared to give Protection to agriculture if it is accompanied by organisation? That is the question I want to ask. I, personally, would be only too glad to do a deal with them on those lines, to do something to lift agriculture out of party politics. I believe that if you got Protection, plus organisation under the Marketing Act, if they were regarded as two twin pillars of an agricultural policy—

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Expiring Laws Act, 1931.

WAYS AND MEANS.
[30th November.]

FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES).
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Viscount WOLMER: I was asking hon. Members opposite whether we could not found a common basis of agricultural policy on what I call the twin pillars of organisation and Protection. I hope before the Debate closes some hon. or right hon. Member opposite will tell us whether the Labour party are prepared to give Protection to agriculture if it is accompanied by organisation. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) told us yesterday that price was the factor that made the difference between profit and loss a statement with which I should think we all agree. How are you going to ensure better prices for the farmers and smallholders of this country without Protection? How are you going to insure that Protection shall not be abused, say hon. Members opposite, unless it is accompanied by organisation? If they would accept that principle and endeavour to apply it in a practical form, and not in the unpractical way of this Amendment, I certainly would go a very long way to try to get agreement between the two parties on that basis. I agree with the statement of the hon. Member that unless we deal with the problem of the home glut, unless we have organisation to eliminate a surplus which may be produced by a bumper harvest in any agricultural crop, keeping out foreign imports is no good by itself, but at the same time it is useless to try to eliminate a borne surplus if we allow foreign surpluses to come in without any control. Therefore, I submit that the two things must go together, and combined they can render a very valuable service to agriculture. The hon. Member seemed to think the Minister was against that principle. I do not believe that to be the case. I think the Minister has already shown what importance he attaches to organisation, and I hope he will be able to confirm this in what he says this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
I would like, if I may, to make this appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister. We on these Benches have,
966
perhaps, been a little bit impatient, and, if you like, unreasonable, during the past few days in urging him to bring forward his full agricultural policy. We know that it cannot be produced quickly, because there are differences of opinion on certain subjects in the Cabinet, but surely I am right in thinking that on this question of organisation and marketing reform the Cabinet are united? The Labour representatives in the Cabinet are, of course, in favour of their own Bill, the Liberal representatives all supported it in the last Parliament, and I hope and believe that, if it were accompanied by Protection, the Conservative representatives in the Cabinet would not he averse to encouraging the principle of organisation. I agree that, if this Amendment was not made to apply to the whole of the 27 crops covered by the Financial Resolution, and if the principle of organisation was applied seriatim, there are several important crops covered by the Resolution where organisation could be applied, if accompanied by Protection, with very great benefit to the farmers. There are the cases of plums and black currants, which are perhaps the two most obvious instances. Of course, those are not the most important articles in regard to which organisation is required. I know that organisation is much more urgently required in regard to milk and potatoes, and, although I cannot deal with those articles on this Resolution, I hope the Minister will take steps on the first opportunity which he gets, to appoint reorganisation commissions in regard to the cases which I have mentioned. I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division, and I ask hon. Members opposite to give their minds and their knowledge to the main problem, which is only touched in the Amendment, and that is organisation plus Protection. If hon. Members will approach the question, not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of what many of them believe to be best for agriculture, I am sure they will find many Members on these benches ready to meet them.
Mr. PRICE: I wish to make a statement with regard to the position of Members sitting on the Opposition Benches.

967
The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), said that we on these benches, must realise that something should be done in the interest of British agriculture, but in our view there are other ways which are much better than the policy now being pursued by the Minister of Agriculture, who is attempting to save agriculture at the expense of the people's food. In the Resolution before us and the duties suggested, there is a large number of articles which to-day form the commonplace food of the working-class people, and if there is going to be duties placed upon those ordinary commonplace articles of food, better organisation ought to be the first consideration and not the last. It appears to those on this side of the House that the only reasonable safeguard of which the public can be assured, if these duties are levied on such articles of food as those which are mentioned in the Schedule, is the organisation sat up under the Marketing Act, and that should have been provided in the first instance. If there is to be Protection for agriculture of the very important kind involved in this Bill, surely we ought to have some security that the general public are not to be traded upon and fleeced as a result of the policy introduced by the Government.
What articles do we find included? It was suggested in speeches made yesterday that the articles involved in the Schedule were luxury articles and nonessential articles. I suggest that the fruit and vegetables dealt with in the Schedule are now the ordinary commonplace food of the working classes, and in more instances than one a large number of the articles are foodstuffs imported into this country at a time when, owing to climatic conditions, British agriculture is not able to produce those particular foods. Take, for example, tomatoes. It is true that tomatoes play a very important part in the food of working classes, and when these duties are put on, unless there is some reasonable control by the Marketing Board to see that the prices are reasonable, and not more than the duty is passed on to the public, we suggest that there will be a very grave danger, not of the general public being called upon to pay the extra duty, but of suffering through the lack of proper marketing organisation.
968
An hon. Member opposite has told us that when the Labour party were in office they paid no attention to the needs of British agriculture. That is not true, because the Labour party tried to do a great deal to improve British agriculture, but the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot and his friends prevented them from doing anything for agriculture on lines which were much better than those suggested by the duties which it is now proposed to place on very important commodities. We find that, in recent years, a large number of the articles in this Schedule have been increasing considerably in their production, and yet the working-classes have received no benefit from them. This Amendment, which I have pleasure in supporting, simply calls upon the Government to make provision for a marketing board to control and regulate both the transport and the prices of the articles dealt with, and this is the only possible way of preventing advantage being taken of the general consumers.
I should imagine that there are no Liberals in this House who can hope to face the electors unless they support this Amendment, which is so fair and just that it ought to command a large measure of support from every Member representing a working-class constituency. We were told during the election by important Ministers of State, including the Prime Minister, that no food taxes would be attempted until reasonable and fair consideration had been given to every item. Now we are told that we are dealing with an emergency Measure, and that therefore there is to be no reasonable consideration, but that the matter is to be left entirely in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I am afraid that the result will be that working-class people who, at the moment, are finding difficulty in purchasing the goods which are enumerated in the Schedule, will have to pay increased prices. I hope the House will give reasonable consideration to the Amendment, and support it, because we contend that this is the only possible way of reorganising agriculture on a sound basis, and at the same time protecting the interests of the consumers.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons which have

969
already been very clearly explained by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wollner). Let me remind the House at once that this proposal which is brought before Parliament has been brought in for the specific purpose of giving powers to deal with luxury and early imports in the months which must elapse between the time this House rises and when we meet again next year. I say at once that, if we were dealing with a problem which was being carried over for a longer period of time, there would be a good deal to be said from the point of view expressed by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and by the Noble Lord behind me, that we should, at any rate, endeavour, when we are passing protective measures for agriculture or indeed for any industry, insist that they should improve their methods of production, of marketing, and of sale. I am not in the least averse to encouraging marketing organisation, but, if one looks closely at this particular Amendment, and the object to which it is directed, it is perfectly clear that any scheme under the Marketing Act must be submitted, in the first instance, to the Minister of Agriculture, and that is bound to take up a considerable period of time. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot puts that period at about four or five months; indeed, it might, as I am advised, take considerably longer and even as long as eight months. Be that as it may, the House will see at once how impossible it is to apply it to the present circumstances, because, if this proposal were adopted, it would be impossible for the Minister to bring in any Order during the next few months, and it would really nullify the whole object of the proposals which we are bringing before the House. No Order could be made in respect of such articles as new potatoes, spring vegetables, strawberries or spring flowers.
As far as the wider and larger policy with regard to agriculture is concerned, I think it is reasonable that, if this House grants measures of Protection to the agricultural industry, we should expect that industry to co-operate with this House and with the Government in organising its production and marketing. I can assure Members of all parties in the House that I am only anxious to see
970
these things done. I want also to make it quite clear that I think it is essential that we should not enter upon the setting up of these commissions, which, after all, are going to cost some money, unless we are quite satisfied that there is a real earnest desire and some reasonable evidence that the industry itself will mean to work out the result arrived at by the reorganisation commission. It is obvious that, if you set up a reorganisation commission such as is suggested here, it does not follow that whatever comes out of it will be finally adopted; it has to go back to the industry. Therefore, in my judgment, it would not only be a waste of time and money, but would defeat its own purpose, unless these reorganisation schemes were entered into with some idea that the industry and those concerned were really going to help to hammer out a working scheme.
I must, on this occasion at any rate, reject the Amendment for the reasons which I have explained, and which I think must be convincing to the House. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment seemed to think that in dealing with these vegetables and fruits we are going to hit at the food of the very poorest people. That is not really so. I have put forward this scheme perfectly frankly and openly as a scheme to shut out from this country luxury products which the country could well do without, and particularly those early vegetables which compete, in a great many cases very unfairly, with our early produce, in regard to which, if I may say so, I think that, in fairness to our own people, we ought to give them some help and encouragement.
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that his proposals are intended only to prevent luxury articles from coming into this country, but the Resolution does not say that. The Schedule enumerates a long list of commodities which come in at all seasons of the year in regular deliveries from every part of the world, including a large part of the Empire as well as foreign countries. There is no suggestion in the Resolution from beginning to end that these products shall only be subject to the duty when they come in at certain seasons and compete unfairly with the produce of our own growers. We have to

971
examine the Resolution as it is, and, although the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is brought forward for the specific purpose of dealing with luxury and early imports, he has not really described the position as it is. He has said that any scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act must be prepared and submitted to the Minister. Has not the right hon. Gentleman yet prepared schemes for the immediate operation of the boards outlined in the first two or three paragraphs of that Act of Parliament? I should be abusing the time allotted to me if I read the Act and the references to those boards, but the right hon. Gentleman has told us, in reply to questions from this side of the House, that he is in favour of the principles of this Act, and is going to use its machinery in order that the best results may be obtained.
The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said he was disappointed because no adequate explanation had been given from this side of the House regarding the intentions of the Amendment. It says that the kind of board set up by the Agricultural Marketing Act should be set up now, in order that there shall be no confusion, but that there shall be regular, steady supplies of goods coming into the markets in different parts of the country; in order that there shall be grading of the goods, so that the quality of the goods may be maintained at the highest possible standard; in order that prices may be regulated, and especially in order that those periodic gluts may be Avoided which do almost all the damage, which result from the absence of an organised marketing system, and which knock the bottom out of prices and inflict very severe losses upon home producers. Such a board would be able to carry out the functions outlined in the Agricultural Marketing Act. There is ample ground for believing that this subject has been very fully discussed. In the Report on the Organisation of Potato Marketing issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—and potato marketing is, perhaps, as good a test as can be found for the articles enumerated in this Schedule—I find this statement:
972
"These big price differences from market to market and from month to month are evidence that the markets at times are oversupplied and at others under-supplied. Through miscalculation on the part of buyers and sellers in the early part of the season as to the total available home supplies, these are not evenly distributed over the marketing season. At times, some of the railhead markets, for example, become so congested as the result of indiscriminate shipment that they have to be closed in order that consumption may catch up with supplies."
That is the kind of thing that we want to avoid. Whatever may be done at the ports of entry, whatever duties may be imposed, there is still the problem of cutthroat competition and over-supplies and gluts in the markets. Later on, the report says:
"As has been shown, market transactions in the country districts are not conducted in such a way as to facilitate the rapid collection and dissemination of market news. The potato trade is not organised on the lines of produce exchanges, where each transaction is recorded, thus enabling full information as to the quantity, quality and prices of goods sold by private treaty to be published."
I will trouble the House with only one more quotation from the report:
"A complete system of market intelligence would include daily information as to the quality, quantity, and prices of potatoes sold in country markets, daily arrivals and stocks at ports and in main consuming centres, accurate records of quantities sold and prices realised in wholesale markets, together with statistics of retail prices and of changes in consumption. Under the present marketing system, much of this information is unobtainable."
In the absence of information, of co-ordination and regulation of the supplies in the markets, and of the, adaptation of the supplies to delivery and demand, there is no escape from the periodical falls in prices which injure the potato grower and the grower of fruit of all descriptions for the markets of this country.
I should like to know what the Government hope to obtain by their Resolution. We have not yet been told. The right hon. Gentleman says that all that is intended is to stop luxury articles from coming in in the early season and competing unfairly with our products because of the comparative lateness of our seasons, but that really does not give the explanation. We should like to know from the Minister whether he hopes

973
to stop, and whether these proposals are intended to stop, the importation of all these goods; or is it the intention only to raise their prices? Is it the intention to stop the importation of potatoes, carrots, and the other vegetables and fruit named, or are they simply to have their prices raised in order that they may meet our products on a fair competitive level The list is really surprising. Nothing has been said as to whether Empire products are to be subject to these duties. I may be slow in picking up the points made in Debate, but no one has yet told me whether, say, South African grapes or apples are to be exempted from the duty because they are Empire products. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course they are!"] It does not say so, or, if it does, I have missed it.
Where do these articles originate? They come from almost every European country, from people who take very large quantities of our manufactured goods. They come from Northern Africa, they come from the Antipodes, they come from almost all parts of the world. The next question that one may ask is, why do they come here? Do they simply come here because the sellers abroad wish to send them, or because there is a demand for them from this country? They come in response to a demand. Dietetic habits are changing in this country, and entirely new ideas are prevailent as to the consumption of vegetables and fruit in larger quantities than before, very much to the advantage of our physical health. Both adults and children in this country, and especially the latter, are very much healthier and fitter and of finer physique than was the case a generation ago, when the range of dietetics was much more limited than it is to-day. These goods come here because there has been a change in the habits of the people as the result of a great weight of medical opinion and advice in regard to dietetic values.
We have been advised during the last few years to eat more fruit, and we are all becoming more or less expert in the principles of dietetics. Everyone knows something about vitamines. I will not venture to explain them in too much detail, because I must confess my ignorance of tile subject, but I suppose every Member of this House tries to get as much as he can of vitamines from fruit and
974
vegetable juices. To cut off the supplies of such articles, if that be the intention of the Government, is to limit very much the opportunities of the ordinary people of this country, of people with very small incomes, to obtain these goods. To stop these goods because they are cheap is to prohibit entirely their use by a very large number of people in this country. I oppose the proposal very strongly on these grounds. I should like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that, if he does stop the importation of these commodities, the prices of the home-produced commodities are going to be maintained at a, reasonable level.
5.0 p.m.
I was astonished to find, in going over the statistical reports of trade and navigation, that the average price per 1b. of imported tomatoes is no more than 2d. That is the average price, c.i.f., at the port of delivery. The average is about 3½d. per 1b. for the whole of the ten months ending October. There is a supply of cheap, wholesome, necessary, and beneficial food which cannot be produced in this country. The tomatoes grow in the summer time and ripen in season without any great labour or care and without artificial protection of any kind, and you propose to deprive the very large majority of our working people, and especially our unemployed, of the enjoyment of that article of diet.
Owing to the prevalence of unemployment and of low wages there are millions of people in this country who have not at their disposal more than an average of 6d. a day with which to feed themselves. I can produce figures to show that large numbers of the unemployed, especially after the Economy Act came into force, have not more than 1d. per person per meal from the beginning of the year to the end. The average amount at the disposal of millions of our working people, unemployed and earning low wages, is not more than a few miserable coppers a day. If they are to have the diet that is necessary to maintain them in physical health, I do not know how they are to get it unless they have the tomatoes sent into this country at 2d. a 1b., which can be retailed if such a board were set up as we are asking for, and if a proper system of distribution was organised, at less than 4d. If you stop that supply, and they have to pay the

975
price charged for the home-produced article, everyone knows that the range of prices for home-grown tomatoes is well beyond the range of the spending power of the working people. You cannot buy tomatoes produced at home at an average price of less than 1s. to 1s. 3d. a 1b. To preclude the working people from enjoying these cheap supplies is to deny them altogether this valuable article of diet.
I find that the price of apples sent here from abroad is only 2d. a 1b. The price of the home-grown apple runs into almost as many shillings in some cases. The luxury articles are the home-produced articles, and the cheap articles are those produced abroad. When grapes are mentioned, a good many people have in their mind the high priced grapes that are sold early in the season at 3s. or 4s. a 1b., but that is only a very small proportion of the imports of grapes. A tax on that class of grapes will not injure the people I represent if the right hon. Gentleman confines his attention to them. But the average price for grapes sent here is less than 4d. a 1b. taken over the last year.
Mr. TURTON: Are they hot-house grapes?
Mr. GRENFELL: No, they are grown in the open.
Sir J. GILMOUR: On the Paper it is confined to hot-house grapes.
Mr. GRENFELL: Then I shall not quarrel very much with the right hon. Gentleman. Those who can pay 4s. or 5s. a 1b. for grapes can easily pay a tax of 50 per cent. additional, and I have no tears to shed for them. In going through the list item by item I have spoken of tomatoes and apples. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I can assist the hon. Member. If he will confine himself to the Amendment now under discussion, he will find it easier than discussing the whole Resolution.
Mr. GRENFELL: I refer to the variety of these commodities, because I recognise that you cannot maintain a reasonable supply of these very varied articles of daily consumption in the homes of all the people of our country unless you have some means by which you can regulate and restrict imports and see that the sup-
976
ply is always adequate to the demand, but does not overflow into the market and does not produce an unfair incidence of competition upon the home producer.
A Noble Lord asked as whether we are now prepared to adopt Protection if such reasonable safeguards as we have outlined were adopted. That question is not due for answer yet. I should like to ask whether he and his friends will operate the Act setting out these boards. Will they, first of all, organise an efficient system of marketing? Will they advise their friends in the agricultural industries to work it out lo its point of greatest effectiveness and give it a fair trial for two or three years? If they will do that, and will build up the indispensable machinery which agriculture will require, we will then talk to them about any additional measures that may be required. For the time being we are convinced that any attempt to impose Protection in the absence of such machinery must end in disaster to the agricultural industry because Protection will not be conducive to efficiency in producing or in marketing. It will raise the prices of the commodities for our working people and, without improving the position of agriculture, it will inflict great injury on the masses of the people.
Major HILLS: The last speaker has travelled widely and has discussed the general question of food taxes. I should like to recall the House to the terms of the Amendment. I would only say in passing that the people for whom he pleads who have small wages or are unemployed, do not buy early asparagus. He knows very well that the whole intention of this Motion is to check the import of early products that come here either in competition with British articles or before they are produced, take the cream off the market and prevent the market gardener from making a reasonable profit. On the question of organisation, I want to tell the Mover of the Amendment how far I go with him and where I join issue. He has already been told by the Minister that time does not allow of the setting up of these boards.
On the general question, everyone must agree that organisation is important. Not only in the agricultural field, but all over the field of industry, organisation and salesmanship increase in importance

977
every year. It is rather a strange thought, but it is true now that, so important is salesmanship, and so well paid is that art, that the world is spending more money in selling itself its own goods than in producing those goods. In agriculture, of course, organisation is very important, but there are two considerations that lie behind organisation. Behind organisation you must have production, for, unless you do, there is nothing to organise, and behind organisation you must have price, for, if competition reduces your price to such a figure as to make it unprofitable, no organisation is of any benefit to you. As long as you open your ports to imports from all over the world, and as long as there is a demand in this country, f you set up your organisation it benefits the people who send their goods here and not the home producer. It does nothing for production here. It is a Dead Sea fruit.
I wonder if hon. Members opposite want to help agriculture or do not. They must see that it is no good talking about organisation and marketing unless they come down to the primary consideration of production. Certain people on the land are producing food. Are they to stay on the land or to leave it? You have to face taxes on food products and you may have to face a rise in price. I do not believe—I will tell the House all that is in my mind—that you can protect agriculture without a small rise in price. I leave it at a small one. I think it is worth paying, but I think it has to be faced.
On that, I come to another point made by the party opposite. They say with some force that Protection may lead to abuses. It is possible. I do not think it will, but I am prepared to consider any reasonable means which they may submit for mitigating and abolishing those abuses. If by some extraordinary chance we saw an access of prosperity to the unfortunate farmers who have lost money for the last two years and do not see a profit this year or next year, and that led to gross profiteering, I quite agree that that would call for correction, but to say that you are not going to give Protection to the farmer because abuses may ensue lands you in a dead end. I think you have to protect agricul-
978
ture. I think that you must go much further than this Resolution, and then, if you see that it is being abused, you can take means to put the matter right. At present, except for this Amendment, which is a practical one, though I cannot accept it, we have not heard a single word of practical assistance from the Opposition for farming and market gardening. Are they satisfied with things as they are?
Mr. LANSBURY: No.
Major HILLS: The right hon. Gentleman says "No."
Mr. LANSBURY: We are not satisfied.
Major HILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman help to put things right?
Mr. LANSBURY: Yes.
Major HILLS: It is no good talking of a marketing board to the farmer who cannot get a fair price for what he produces, or of organising and bringing in the foreign product. That does not assist the home producer. You must get down to bedrock, which is the price the producer can get for what he produces. You have to face that position. If you want to assist agriculture, you will have to do far more than marketing or organising. You will have to give our farmers a chance of making a profit, and then I believe that our farmers can beat the world. I believe that they are the best farmers in the world. I do all I can to further the cause of organisation in marketing. I well remember visiting Ireland a short time after Sit Horace Plunkett had started his well-known dairies. That was a question, not of competition, but of organisation and selling in large quantities and grading so that the buyer knew that he would always get the same quality. I was told that the effect of starting those dairies doubled the value of the cow to the peasant—a very valuable thing to do. You have to do more than that here. It is not only a question of organisation. I am very much afraid that with all the help we get from the other side it will not really assist the farmer. I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite realise how desperate is the situation. I welcome this Measure. It will do a certain amount to assist a certain class of producers. It does not touch the main

979
question of agriculture, but I accept it with gratitude, defined by a distinguished philosopher, as a lively sense of favours to come.
Mr. J. JONES: Those of us who were born in agricultural areas can appreciate the knowledge which some of our friends who come from industrial centres possess on the matter of agriculture. I do not now know much about agriculture myself, because I have been a long time divorced from it, but I come from a dockside constituency in the East End of London and I hold in my hand a tag taken off a cargo of potatoes landed in this country from Germany. The carmen loading those potatoes at the docks received instructions that they must take off the tags as soon as they loaded up the potatoes. The merchant who employs those carmen gives them instructions that they must take off the tags from the bags as soon as they load them up at the docks. The potatoes then go down to the shops in the East End of London, and all round the stalls and the shops we have the great placard "Buy British goods." And they are German potatoes. The gentleman who is the main author of this game is one who was a great supporter of the National Government at the last election. He can buy those potatoes landed at the London Docks at a halfpenny a pound, and they are sold to the people in the East End of London at three halfpence a pound or eight pounds a shilling.
We know the old cry of patriotism. It is the same people who wave the Union Jack in front of the Union Jack-asses every day in the week, 24 hours a day. I was very interested to discover that the mark on those German potatoes was "DL." I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite really agrees that it is true, but it is a fact. This tag was given to me this morning by one of my constituents who works at the docks. I want you to realise that after all there are more ways of killing a pig than by sticking it. Here is the position. What guarantee have we that when you have got all this so-called Protection that the workers of the country are going to be any better off, except in' this respect, that they will have to pay more for what they get. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will get wages to pay for them."] Wages, what wages? Will you in carrying out
980
your Protectionist policy guarantee the rate of wages of every worker? I You know you will not.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hope that the hon. Member will not be led away by interruptions from the Amendment which is now before the House. I have not quite discovered that what has been said already is pertinent to the Amendment.
Mr. JONES: The first point I want to make is with regard to marketing. Our own people are prepared to take advantage of the market for their own advantage and then to place round their shops and stalls placards "Buy British goods," while they are selling foreign goods. Is not that a marketing point, Sir.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had perhaps better read the actual Amendment which refers to a scheme under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act. It is only to limit the Resolution to cases in which boards have been set up to establish special schemes under that Act.
Mr. JONES: That is the reason why I am supporting it. I want to see boards established, not merely to arrange schemes of marketing for the sale of the commodities which people have to buy but also for the protection of the workers who have to produce the commodities. In all the discussions on these proposals, there is not a single word about protecting the worker in regard to the hours of labour or the conditions of employment. I happen to be one of those people who is neither a Free Trader nor a Protectionist; I am a Socialist. I will protect the class to which I belong with my last dying breath. I do not care what happens to me as long as the people I represent and to whom I belong get fair play. But what have we here? Protection for the people who are well protected.
I have already heard about the farmers who are doing so badly. I happen to be a trade union official who travels the country fairly extensively. The poor old farmers used to run round with the pony chaise, and now they have motor cars. Down and out? Their daughters go to college to be trained as teachers and their sons go round the countryside

981
enjoying themselves at golf and other entertainments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is that?"] In every part of the country; in every market place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] I know, of course, that I am surrounded by the bovine intelligence of the people who have just been successful. I only ask hon. Members to realise the facts, that, while the workers have been going down and down, the other people have not been going down to the same extent. They are better off now than they were formerly, while the workers are worse off than they have been for the lust 25 years. You are asking us to agree to increasing the price of commodities which the ordinary worker has to use. Does anybody suggest that the items in this Schedule are going to be the only basis for Protection? Raspberries and strawberries. You will get the gooseberry. [Interruption.] Yes, we give the gooseberry down in Canning Town to people who talk like this. [An HON. MEMBER "You got it at the last election!"] Yes, and you will get it after the next election.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must really ask the hon. Member to devote his remarks to the Amendment which is before the House and to confine his remarks to that Amendment.
Mr. JONES: Certainly, Sir Dennis. I will do my best, but the Schedule contains raspberries, gooseberries and apples, and strawberries, of course. Those of us who live in the East End of London are not interested in strawberries. We see them only at a certain period of the year. We are interested in potatoes, and the ordinary vegetables which the ordinary working man has to consume. We know that you are not going to stop at strawberries; we know that you on the opposite side of the House and all around us are going to ask for Protection for every kind of commodity which the farmers produce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear it. I suggest that, if we do not get protection for the worker in regard to wages and conditions, you are simply asking for privilege at the expense of the great masses of the people of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That will follow automatically!"] You are asking us to put a penny into your slot
982
machine, and we are not going to do so. It is not a question of Protection for the people of Great Britain, but for sections of the people of Great Britain. We are opposing this kind of Protection, because it means the robbing of the workers for the benefit of those who do not work. Who is to get the benefit of this scheme of agricultural Protection? Not the ordinary workman. The people who are going to get benefit are the people who own the land.
Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: The farmer and farm workers are going to get the benefit.
Mr. JONES: I have been in this House long enough to know what sympathy the hon. Members have for the farm worker.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I would remind him, has been in this House long enough to know what is in order in discussing an Amendment of this kind, and he really must confine himself to the Amendment, and perhaps it will assist the hon. Member if other hon. Members do not make interjections not relevant to the Amendment.
Mr. JONES: I thank you very much, Sir, for the correction. I would not have said what I did say had it not been for my hon. Friend opposite who, owing to his inexperience, does not understand the possibility of your Ruling, Sir. I will say no more, because I have said enough.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount ELMLEY: I think that the Amendment puts the cart before the horse, because, as I see it, the Resolution could not work at all until you had various kinds of boards established under the Agricultural Marketing Act to deal with the products mentioned in the Resolution. It would take a great deal of time. That is time which we cannot spare. The Resolution is far more important at the present time than the Agricultural Marketing Act, taking into account the state of the trade of the country, particularly of agriculture. Before we try to get what the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) wants, namely, better organisation, better handling, packing, distributing and grading of goods, it is far more important to pass this Resolution. It would not be a wise thing at this moment to deal with

983
the Agricultural Marketing Act and the Resolution together, and I suggest that hon. Members opposite should not press their Amendment.
If we pass the Resolution and the Government have time to develop their agricultural policy, what hon. Members ask for in their Amendment will come more easily than it could come now. We must get down to the fundamental things and try to get the other things afterwards. The feeling of the people of the country generally, and not only agriculturists, is strongly in favour of this Resolution, or something on the same lines. If we were to support the series of Amendments which are on the Order Paper we should be throwing sand into the machinery, instead of helping to get things done better, and we should not be doing that which we were elected to do. I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment, but that they will pass the Resolution as soon as possible, and develop their agricultural policy more fully as soon as possible, and that the result will be that they will be able to help the agricultural industry in a way which no one Government and no one party has been able to help it before.
Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The Amendment is to advertise the Marketing Act of the late Government. I agree with the Noble Lord, the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he said that we should be very willing to see provision for better organisation and marketing in any legislation which the Government may bring forward, but in this particular case it seems to me that the Amendment defeats the object in view. This is merely emergency legislation. It is stated in the Order itself that it is to continue in force for only 12 months. As regards making use of the Agricultural Marketing Act, I would point out that 27 different boards will be required, one for each product, and that each board is bound to take nearly 12 months before we can get any result. The present legislation is of an emergency kind, but I hope that it is only a forecast to show the agricultural and horticultural industry what the Government intend to do. I hope the Government intend to follow up this legislation with further Measures of sup-
984
port. The Amendment would hit industries which are on the verge of extinction and will go unless something is done for them at once.
I had a letter this morning from a constituent of mine who, among other produce, grows grapes outside Reading. He has 20 acres of glass and employs at some parts of the year nearly 100 men. He is very thankful that in this Order there is to be a duty on hothouse grapes from abroad. He points out that if something of that sort does not take place not only will his men lose their employment but that the grapes that he grows, having regard to the low price obtained, owing to competition, will have to go and that part of the industry will be lost. This emergency legislation will keep a luxury industry like that going in our own country, enabling it to give employment and wages to our home workers. If the Amendment were carried it would mean that the legislation would be put off for many months, and that industry would go. I hope that the Amendment will be withdraw, because it could not help the problem of emergency which the legislation foreshadowed is meant to help.
It is all very well to talk about organisation, but it is a matter of what is good business. Surely, we can trust the Ministry of Agriculture to look to this matter of what is good business and to rest assured that they will not give safeguarding or protection to any badly organised industry. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about food supplies, such as broccoli and cauliflowers, and to say that those industries are badly organised. If they had been at the Royal Agricultural Show this year and had seen the cinema display by the Ministry of Agriculture, showing the way in which the broccoli industry is organised, how the plants were collected and sent over to Holland and other places abroad and sold in those markets, they would not say that it was a badly organised industry. What has happened in the last six months I do not know, but as these particular commodities are included in the Order it would appear that they are suffering from foreign competition. It cannot be said, however, that that is because it is a badly organised industry. I hope the Amendment will be rejected.
Mr. TINKER: The Amendment is for the purpose of securing proper organisation before Protection is given. I agree with hon. Members opposite that the country has declared for Protection. There can be no doubt that at the last election that was what the country meant. We on this side have been returned as anti-Protectionists, and on a matter like this we have a right to put forward our point of view as a small minority to show the dangers into which the country is being led. When we have pointed out those dangers, if the Government and hon. Members opposite cannot see their way to accept our point of view, of course they will go on with their Measure. Before they adopt any big measure of Protection we ought to be sure that these particular trades have been organised as far as possible. It is well known that where Protection is brought in it often leads to inefficiency and disorganisation. We want to be satisfied that these particular industries have been tested to the full in regard to their efficiency.
The effect of our Amendment, by putting the matter under the marketing boards, would enable us to know whether the full extent of organisation has been utilised. When the Government have proved to us that a full measure of efficiency has been secured and that still these particular industries cannot pay their men and make a profit, then I agree that we must examine the position. It would be futile for us to say that the industries must lapse or that they must pay wages with which we could not agree. Under those circumstances the Government would have a right to say to us: "Are you still Free Traders, or are you prepared to adopt some other measures?" and I, in common fairness, would have to say that I must agree with their point of view, if and when they have done what we desire. They have not done that yet. The Amendment asks them to do it. We are told that it may mean delay. Yes, but look what time has passed up to now. It is necessary that some such steps as we suggest in the Amendment should be taken before the Government adopt the method which, once adopted, is very difficult to remove afterwards.
The Minister of Agriculture made a mistake when he said that this legislation would not increase the price of the com-
986
modities in question. He said, further, that we must protect our people. Protecting our people must mean that the producers will get an increased price for their stuff, and in that case it must mean that the price of commodities will go up. I do not want the other side to disguise that fact. When we have adopted the proposed legislation, the price of commodities must, increase and someone will have to bear that increased cost. Before this Measure was introduced I was told by a prominent man that he knew that certain big men were going round and buying up whole stocks of potatoes at a price more than the market price. He said that they were getting ready for the Protective Measures which they knew would be introduced shortly in the House of Commons. That was two days before this Measure was introduced.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member whether the adoption of this Amendment in regard to marketing boards would have anything to do with that?
Mr. TINKER: Yes. It would prevent this Measure being passed until we had organised the industry.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not argue against the Resolution as a whole, because he regards the Amendment as a wrecking one. He must confine himself to the words of the Amendment.
Mr. TINKER: I bow to your Ruling, although I think I am right. My point of view is, that we want, first of all, a full examination of these particular industries and proof that they have achieved full efficiency before they ask for tariffs.
Sir W. WAYLAND: The last speaker has approached this subject from an entirely wrong viewpoint. He is anxious that we should go to the marketing boards under the Act which was introduced by the last Government, but filial would be a most ineffective intrument. Hon. Members opposite are perturbed lest wages should suffer, but they have not attempted to defend the Measure which the Minister has brought in from the point of view of the agricultural worker. What we are attempting to do, and what the late Minister of Agriculture attempted to do, is to increase the smallholdings.

987
By increasing smallholdings we enable the smallholders to do exactly the same as the French smallholder does, even in and around Paris. He intensively cultivates his little bit of land and produces a considerable amount of early vegetables of every kind which we in this country import and for which we pay a very high price. If we could enable our smallholders to do the same we should give them a better opportunity of making money than they have at the present time.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting on to the subject of the main Resolution and away from the Amendment.
Sir W. WAYLAND: I bow to your decision. We shall do no good by referring these questions to marketing boards because they could not be got into operation for another nine months, and the exigencies of the agricultural situation will not permit of that delay. We want action at once; and I am glad that the Government have taken this action which I hope will in the end embrace all agricultural products. May I liken it to a little bantam cock which by careful feeding, and by adding a little ginger to its food from time to time, will grow into a full-grown Plymouth Rock. The Amendment does not receive the support of any agricultural worker or farmer. I can understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) who represents the Port of London into which comes a considerable amount of the vegetables which compete with our own farmers.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again discussing the main Resolution and not the Amendment. He must confine himself to the question of limiting the Resolution to cases where a marketing board has been set up.
Sir W. WAYLAND: I bow to your decision, and I conclude by saying that I shall oppose the Amendment.
Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I sat throughout the whole of the Committee which set up the Marketing Board under the Act of 1931, and I am rather surprised that there should be any opposition to the Amendment. What does it amount to? Farmers grow their produce, and they have to sell it. How is it sold?
988
We have continually heard that sometimes goods are put on the market and that the price obtained has barely justified the picking of the fruit. If a marketing board was introduced it would eliminate the cut-throat competition which goes on amongst the people who produce these goods and enable them to get a decent price for their commodities. That is what a marketing board is set up to accomplish. No one can deny that in existing circumstances complete anarchy prevails in the selling of produce; and this is even the case where the commodity is protected. In the case of hops, which were protected by a duty, an organisation was set up for the industry, but some people would not come in and the result was that those who refused to come into the organisation were selling their hops for less than the tax imposed on imported hops.
Sir W. WAYLAND: The hon. Member is mistaken. They sold their hops at the same price as other members of the association, and were the gainers because the price of hops had been raised by the efforts of the association.
Mr. DUNCAN: No one will deny that there was a complete lack of organisation and that there was cut-throat competition, notwithstanding all the efforts of the organisation. No more fatuous position could possibly be imagined. If we are to have this kind of legislation surely it is reasonable to ask, when you are proposing to give people who produce these articles some form of protection, that they should be able to take full advantage of the protection that is given. There is nothing in those proposals to enable producers to set up a board. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act they are able to set up a board and the whole of the producers are compelled to come in. Whatever prices are fixed this at least gives complete unity amongst the producers. If we pass this legislation and allow this cut-throat competition still to go on protection will be no advantage to the people who are producing the articles.
I am astonished that there should be the slightest objection to the Amendment. It does not say that they shall set up a marketing board within the next five minutes. It will take time, but if there is an urge behind the business then those

989
who are interested in these various industries will set themselves to the task of securing unity and eliminating the competition which goes on. The producers are in the hands of the people who buy their stuff. The producers want the money as soon as the crop is raised. They have bills and accounts to meet and, therefore, are prepared to sell almost at any price in order to get a little ready money. Protection will not help people in that position. The middleman will still go on and make his profit. It is only by effective organisation that you will eliminate the middleman and give the producer the result of his labour. If we could get the producers of these commodities to come together and set up a marketing board it would be their salvation, and the salvation of the people they employ. It is well known that the producers of these goods are not getting a proper price for their commodities, and, therefore, they cannot pay a proper wage to their people. We do not need to he told that, it is obvious; and to a great extent it accounts for the very low wages existing in the various industries associated with agriculture. A marketing board is the way out of the difficulty.
I am not arguing against Protection, not for a moment, I am arguing for an effective organisation of the industry; and the only danger I can see is that the organisation may be so powerful and so effective an instrument that the people who have to buy these products might be fleeced. At the same time there are safeguards in the Act on that matter. The main object of a marketing board is to give producers a chance of bringing organisation and system out of anarchy, and it would certainly be the most effective way of enabling them not only to make a reasonable profit but also to pay fair and reasonable wages to their workpeople. The result would be to the advantage of all concerned. While the circumstances of agriculture may not be so bad as some people would have us believe, they are not as good as they ought to be. I think they should be made better, and it is because I believe the Amendment will enable these people to create an effective organisation to control sale and prices that I am supporting it. I am amazed at the opposition of hon. Members opposite, and I think they will live to regret it.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like the Minister of Agriculture to be a little more explicit. He says that if he accepted the Amendment it would completely nullify the desire and intention of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman submitted only one solitary argument against the Amendment, and that was that it would take between four months and eight months before any marketing schemes could be set up. That is scarcely a sufficient reply to the case that has been put forward. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it may require the setting up of 27 marketing boards. Is the case so urgent in any one of these categories of fruits, vegetables, or flowers, that he does not think it worth while to inspire the market gardener or the horticulturist to set up a marketing board if beneficial results are likely to accrue? In none of these categories is the urgency so great as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. Yesterday he had ample opportunity to reply to the statements made in regard to the fundamental difficulty so far as the potato problem is concerned, but he carefully avoided both in his first and in his second speech any reference to the question of marketing. Unless some marketing organisation is set up to deal with the periodical surplus, not only in potatoes but in plums and other items as well, then the consumer has no safeguard at all.
6.0 p.m.
Let me draw attention to two of the major items in the Schedule. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time for the Government to bring such pressure as is possible to bear on the producers to organise the collection, grading and sale of their particular produce, so as to secure for themselves the maximum advantage of their industry and to ensure for the consumer the commodity at a price which is reasonable as between producer and consumer? I would also draw attention to one of the Orange Books relating to plums. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it would be wise on the part of this House to concede a Customs duty on this commodity while the present haphazard method, as distinct from business, is allowed to go on. Let us see what a periodic increase in output or a surplus means in price to the producer. Take the three years, 1923, 1924 and 1925. This is what we dis-

991
cover. In 1923 the output of plums in this country was 430,000 cwts. The price in that year was 469 points above the pre-War price. In 1924 the output increased from 430,000 cwts. to 640,000 cwts., and the price for that year actually fell to 14 points below the pre-War price. That was because the output of plums had increased by 50 per cent. Does anyone want a better example than that price of the failure of the producers to deal with periodic surpluses Because of a 50 per cent. increase of production the price actually is reduced in one year by about 500 per cent. to the consumer.
The next two years are equally emphatic. Wherever you have a surplus, the producer has no organisation and each individual producer acts in what he conceives to be the best interest of himself; he lands his produce on the market and breaks the price, and consequently gets a smaller income from a bigger output than he would secure when there is a shortage of the commodity. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he cannot see his way, if he is unwilling to accept the Amendment, at least to apply the Amendment to some of the articles mentioned in the Schedule. The same remarks apply to potatoes. In the normal year, with a normal output, knowing that the demand is fairly constant, the potato grower has no problem at all. A problem arises only when he has a huge surplus, when nature has been bountiful. In the absence of any organisation to deal with the surplus the price is broken, the bottom falls out of the market, and it is the poor smallholder referred to by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) who pays the price. It is the poor small farmer every time who has to sell on the worst possible market.
Viscount WOLMER: Suppose that it is a foreign surplus, what does the hon. Member say?
Mr. WILLIAMS: It so happens that it never is a foreign surplus that creates disturbance in the potato market of this country.
Viscount WOLMER: But this is the dumping ground for the world's surpluses.
Mr. WILLIAMS: If the Noble Lord will read and try to assimilate some of
992
the information produced by experts of the Ministry of Agriculture, he will discover that there never has been a problem for the potato grower in this country except in years of exceptional surplus. [Interruption.] The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents Ripon (Major Hills) cannot have read any of these documents, otherwise he would not have interrupted. I would call his attention to pages 67 and 68 of a document called "Agricultural Statistics," which comes from the Ministry of Agriculture. I would ask him to read the statement made by the Ministry expert, not by amateurs or partial politicians or interested persons. He will there see that there is no problem for the potato grower except in those years when we have had an excess over the normal output, or, in other words, when there is a huge surplus. If a marketing scheme were in existence for the purpose of dealing with the surplus, allocating for feeding stock 10, 12½ or 15 per cent. as the case may be, and leaving the normal quantities available, imported potatoes would have no effect whatever on the price of potatoes in this country.
Major HILLS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that there was no dumping of potatoes in 1929? Did they not affect the price?
Mr. WILLIAMS: What I said broadly was that the potato grower in this country seldom has any problem, except the problem that arises when a huge crop is grown in this country, more than the normal requirement, which are almost constant. I take that statement from the expert of the Department who has all the figures at his disposal and is not biased in favour of politicians, parties, farmers or anyone else. I suggest to the Minister that there is a solution in marketing and organisation. We are utterly opposed to any taxation upon food at any time. Unless and until we know that the last thing organisation and in marketing has been applied we should not consider for a moment any form of Protection whatever. The right hon. Gentleman is not only supporting Protection, but Protection of staple foods without any guarantee at all that marketing is to be enforced or influenced by the Department. Really that is asking too much of the Opposition and, I should

993
hope, too much of many Members of the Liberal party.
Will the Minister answer this question? He has stated that the matter is very urgent. Will he state where the urgency lies? It cannot be with regard to new potatoes in the coming spring, for he must know that there is a shortage this year and that unless some imports are forthcoming in the early months of next year, there will be a famine so far as the major portion of the working and industrial classes of the country are concerned. We suggest, therefore, that the urgency is not present. What is urgent is the need for marketing and organisation.
With regard to plums and tomatoes and all the other minor things, it was definitely shown yesterday that there is no problem at all. It is a mere excuse for the Minister to say that 27 marketing boards would be required. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to apply the Amendment to any one of the items mentioned in the Schedule? On his reply to that question we shall determine whether we shall carry the Amendment into the division Lobby or not.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 377.

Division No 25.]

AYES

[6.11 p.m.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas w.

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hicks, Ernest George

Price, Gabriel

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

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins, Sir William

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, Joseph

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lansbury, Ht. Hon. George

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Duncan. Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Leonard, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lunn, William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. John.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Boyce, H. Leslie

Cook, Thomas A.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Bralthwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E, R.)

Cooke, James D,

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Brass, Captain Sir William

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Aibery, Irving James

Briant, Frank

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Craven-Ellis, William

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (Birk'nh'd,W)

Broadbent, Colonel John

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Apsley, Lord

Buchan, John

Cross, R. H.

Aske, Sir William Robert

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Crossley, A. C.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Burghley, Lord

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Dalkeith, Earl of

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.

Butler, Richard Austen

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Davison, Sir William Henry

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Balniel, Lord

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Dickie, John p.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Donner, P. W.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Bateman, A. L.

Castle Stewart, Earl

Drewe, Cedric

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th,Centr'l)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Duggan, Hubert John

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Dunglass, Lord

Bernays, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. SirJ. A.(Birm., W)

Eden, Robert Anthony

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Ednam, Viscount

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Blinded, James

Chotzner, Alfred James

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Christie, James Archibald

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Borodale, Viscount

Clarke, Frank

Elmley, Viscount

Bossom, A. C.

Clayton Dr. George C.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Boulton, W. W.

Colville, Major David John

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Conant, R. J. E.

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Eseenhigh, Reginald Clare

Llewellin, Major John J.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Reid, James S. C, (Stirling)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Remer, John R.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Falle Sir Bertram G.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Flanagan, W. H.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Ross, Ronald D.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Mabane, William

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Ganzoni, Sir John

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Gibson, Charles Granville

McCorquodale, M. S.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

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

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Gledhill, Gilbert

McEwen, J. H. F.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Glossop, C. W. H.

McKeag, William

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McKie, John Hamilton

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

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

McLean, Major Alan

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Graves, Marjorie

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Scone, Lord

Grimston, R. V.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Selley, Harry R.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Magnay, Thomas

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hales, Harold K.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

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

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Martin, Thomas B.

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

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

Hanbury, Cecil

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Meller, Richard James

Smithers, Waldron

Harbord, Arthur

Mills, Sir Frederick

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Harris, Percy A.

Milne, Charles

Soper, Richard

Hartland, George A.

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kennlngt'n)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Harvey Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Mclson, A. Harold Elsdale

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J, T. C.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E)

Stevenson, James

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Stewart, William J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morrison, William Shephard

Stones, James

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Storey, Samuel

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Stourton, John J.

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Munro, Patrick

Strauss, Edward A.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Nail, Sir Joseph

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hopkinson, Austin

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Hornby, Frank

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Horobin, Ian M.

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Horsbrugh, Florence

North, Captain Edward T.

Summersby, Charles H.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Nunn, William

Sutcliffe, Harold

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gfn, S.)

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Templeton, William P.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ormiston, Thomas

Thom, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Palmer, Francis Noel

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hurd, Percy A,

Pearson, William G.

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

Hurst. Sir Gerald B.

Peat, Charles U.

Thompson, Luke

Hutchison, Ma).-Gen, Sir R.(Montr'se)

Penny, Sir George

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Percy, Lord Eustace

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon Sir W.

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Peters. Dr. Sidney John

Titcbfield, Major the Marquess of

James, Winn Com. A W. H.

Petherick, M.

Train, John

Jackson, Douglas

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pike, Cecil F.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Potter, John

Wpllace, John (Dunfermline)

Ker, J. Campbell

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Knebworth, Viscount

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Leckie, J. A.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Wells, Sydney Richard

Lees-Jones, John

Ramsden, E.

Weymouth, Viscount

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

White, Henry Graham

Levy, Thomas

Rea, Walter Russell

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Liddall, Walter S.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

996

997

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Withers, Sir John James

Wragg, Herbert

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Lord Erskine and Mr. Harcourt Johnston.

Wise, Alfred R.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in line 35, to leave out the words "Cherries, currants, gooseberries."
I wish to express my total disagreement with views which have been expressed in almost every speech that has been made from the Government benches as to what should and should not figure in the dietary of the working classes of this country. Only to-day the Minister of Agriculture said that the Government in these proposals were not hitting the food of the poorest of the people. In my opinion, they are hitting part of the food of the poorest of the people. Not only so, but in my opinion in this matter they are hitting at the very people who require those types of food more than any other class of people. If we are to give any weight at all to the views of the medical practitioners of this country, we must pay attention to the reiteration by those gentlemen of the statement that fresh fruit must, in an ever-widening degree, become a part of the common dietary of all the people of this country. Therefore, I feel resentment at the attitude adopted by hon. Members on the benches opposite who seem to infer that these are items of food which ought not to be accepted as items in the dietary of the working classes at all.
We deem that each of the items to which the Amendment refers is necessary for the working people. It is true that the wealthier classes, or those who are reasonably well off, can extend the period of their consumption of these items to a much longer duration than is possible for those who have not the same financial status. That fact is admitted by the fruit-growers themselves. I have here a memorandum of the Scottish Fruit-growers Association in which they state that their efforts are limited by climatic conditions. That is a reasonable statement but it does not constitute a reason why the people who require certain changes in their dietary should not have those changes. We know that it is the case, but I am not prepared to accept it as a reason why these three items should not continue to figure in the dietary of
998
the working-class over as long a period of the year as possible. I notice that in this memorandum prominence is given to a certain definite statement. This is the beginning of their claim:
"As a beginning we claim that we can supply our home markets with all they require during our growing season,"—
They are not quite definite as to the duration of the growing season, as they add—
"say, from June to September."
If they can only supply an essential part of the food of the people from June to September, and if it is possible to extend the period during which the people can receive those essentials of life, I assert that we ought to place no obstacle in the way of the extension of that period. If the well-to-do, the so-called superior people of this country, can extend the period of their consumption of these items from earlier than June until later than September, then, on behalf of the working people, I claim their right to be able to consume these three items of food during the same period.
6.30 p.m.
I wish to refer to Scotland in particular in connection with the production of these fruits. I notice from the details at our disposal that only a 200th part of the available arable land of Scotland is used for this type of production. That statement must be qualified by the addition that that 200th part includes land used for the production of carrots, cabbage, peas, and certain classes of turnips, and out of the 200th part of the available land, which is used for this purpose, only 7,900 acres are producing fruits of this description. That is a very meagre proportion of the activity in this direction to protect, if that protection is going to interfere in any way with the well-being of the people of this country.
Suggestions have been made that it is part of our duty to make a practical contribution as to how we can help those who are engaged in this pursuit, and I notice in this memorandum a suggestion that might he acted upon if protection

999
of the growers is necessary, because the President of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture has made the statement, with regard to the elements that they have to consider in competing with foreign countries, that the freight upon a ton of fruit from the Baltic to London is actually less than half the freight on fruit from Blairgowrie to London. There is an avenue which might be exhausted by those who are asking for protection in a form that would go against the working people of this country. They might also pay some attention to the rents that they are paying to the landowning class of this country. There at least are two avenues that might be pursued by the association that has presented this memorandum to the country, and that might be exhausted before asking us to act in a way that would be detrimental to the working people.
There is another aspect of the matter that would be helpful to them as well. It has been dealt with already and to some extent rejected by the other side, and that is the question of the tremendous waste that takes place in the retail handling of the products that the growers bring into being.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is really making a speech against the whole Resolution. If he were to confine himself to the particular classes of fruit mentioned in the Amendment, he would be more in order. I might say now that unless there is something very definite that affects this particular kind of fruit, both these Amendments should be discussed at the same time—the one dealing with plums and strawberries with the present Amendment, which deals with cherries, currants, and gooseberries.
Mr. LEONARD: I will pay attention to your Ruling, and I will turn to the agricultural statistics for the year 1930, issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and dealing with the three items specifically mentioned in this Amendment. I see there no evidence leading me to the conclusion that we should act in the manner suggested by the Government. I notice that the whole crop of cherries in 1930, at 405,000 cwt., was more than 100,000 cwt. larger than in the preceding year, and while this increase was to a great extent counterbalanced by a reduc-
1000
tion—I would emphasise this point—in imports, which fell from 144,000 cwt. to 60,000 cwt., the seasonal average prices showed decreases ranging between 10 and 15 per cent.
But while we must admit, from the figures as they appear, that the reduction in prices has ranged from 10 to 15 per cent., if we go to the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society for the same year, we find that the index figure of prices for the whole of agriculture is 34 per cent. above pre-War. I do not know to what figure this will actually take them with regard to this 15 per cent. reduction, but I suggest that if all agriculture is 34 per cent. above pre-War prices, there are many industries in this country which are in a much worse position than that with regard to price. Take the case of black currants, which, according to this Government report, were estimated to have yielded 260,000 cwt. as against 254,000 cwt. in 1929, and red currants 80,000 cwt. as against 73,000 cwt., while the imports of currants declined by 18,700 cwt. to 123,000 cwt., and the average price again fell as well. I could give other details, but I do not wish to detain the House. I find that, notwithstanding the position taken up by the other side, production is increasing and imports are actually going down.
Then there is another aspect upon which I would like to touch, especially because of the reference made by the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a supplementary question as to whether a certain thing was not coming into this country to an abnormal extent. His reply was "Yes," but he was also aware that it was a raw material. Now cherries, gooseberries, and currants are also raw materials when considered in conjunction with a new industry that has started in this country and has displayed itself very prominently since 1929. I refer to the fruit preserving industry, the jam-making and canning industry. If raw materials are to be allowed to come in, these three items are definitely raw materials for the canning industry, and they would also help the engineers to get the wages that are necessary with which to buy.
If we went into one of those new industries and recognised the large amount of machinery which is necessary to use up the raw material contained in

1001
these three items, we would think twice about accepting the suggestion to give protection. The machinery that I have in mind is in a very large undertaking not far from here, in Kent, which, by the way, it might please hon. Members opposite to know, is entirely stocked by British machinery, and that machinery could not work unless it had the raw material with which to work. One of the means whereby it can work is the possibility of a spread-over in jam-making activities. Therefore, from the point of view of giving free entry to a raw material, I oppose the Government's proposals with regard to these three items. We are informed from this same place in Kent—and this might be a very potent reason for Conservatives to support the Amendment—that the name of a raspberry which is canned entirely in that factory is the "Lloyd George" raspberry. Therefore, perhaps hon. Members opposite, who would like to see an individual of that name properly canned up and kept out of mischief, might on that ground alone help us with regard to this Amendment.
Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I heard several maiden speeches yesterday, and most of them impressed me with their sincerity. I believe that those who delivered them thought that these proposals on behalf of the agricultural industry were good, that they would assist in reviving the industry and give more employment to the agricultural labourer. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has just spoken about the canning industry and various other industries in which these items are considered as raw materials, but I want to point out that the Resolution affects not only the canning industry, but very important heavy industries as well.
I remember taking a trip from Swansea to the Near East in 1924. I was invited by a shipowner to take the trip, and when the boat arrived at Swansea I was told that it would be ready to leave in about 12 hours. I made inquiries and discovered that the boat was loading coal and tinplates that had been produced in the South Wales district, which was very pleasing to me, because I was connected with the steel and tinplate trade. We started on our voyage, and I found myself in Polak, in Greece, and that was a currant-producing part of Greece. I
1002
was very interested to flail out that we were unloading all the coal there and all the tinplates, and that the currants that they were producing there were put into these tinplate boxes and sent back to this country in exchange for the coal and the tinplates.
One of the most damaging speeches against these proposals last night was that by the hon. Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie), who asked whether the Minister would consider the effect of them on the shipping industry. Has he considered the effect of these proposals on the coal mining and tinplate industries? I am sure that he has not altered his own economies, and that he still believes that we must have exports to pay for the imports into this country, and that we must have imports to pay for our exports. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, as I believe that all professors of economics, whether Free Traders or Tariff Reformers, take that as basic. The wages made in the heavy industries in this country are not very satisfactory, but it is the heavy industries that pay the biggest wages to-day, and what the Government are doing is to try to revive an industry that is paying 22s. and 25s. a week and to throw men in these heavy industries out of employment. You will not, therefore, improve employment in this country, but reduce it in the heavy industries. This is a substantial Amendment which the Minister ought to consider in view of the injury that will be done to the tinplate trade and coal mining. These are the most idiotic pronosals ever put before the House. They have never been seriously considered. The Minister ought to understand that for every pound's worth of goods that go from this country, a pound's worth must he imported, and conversely; and if we adopt an insular policy of absolute Protection, we shall have no external trade-whatever. We had an illustration when Black Rod name to the House this after-noon—
Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with cherries and currants.
Mr. GRIFFITHS: I was giving it only as an illustration. Black Rod was shut out, but the man who shut him out closed himself in. It is exactly the same as far as imports and exports in international

1003
trade are concerned. By a policy of Protection we shut the importers out and close ourselves in. I will say this, however, that if you nationalise all the means of production, distribution and exchange—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into that question.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that, in addition to this Amendment dealing with cherries, currants and gooseberries, we are also discussing the next Amendment dealing with plums and strawberries.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be much more convenient if we did. The same argument applies to both Amendments.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not see any point in prolonging the agony, and if it is intended to deal with both Amendments in one discussion, we can have two Divisions without a second Debate.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that would be the best plan.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I have listened with interest to what the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have said, and particularly to the interesting description which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) gave of his voyage. The hon. Member went into a lengthy argument showing how the tinplate, coal and currant trades between this country and Greece were involved, but he appears to have overlooked the fact that what we are discussing in this Order and under these Amendments, is the volume of fresh fruit that comes into this country; so that everything that he said about currants coming from the East does not apply, because that is obviously a trade in dried currants. What is the desire of hon. Members They wish to cut out these various fresh fruits from the operation of the Orders which the Government propose that Parliament shall approve. The Mover of the Amendment largely talked about these things as the raw material of certain industries. Ought we not, however to direct our attention more than anything else to making use of the raw materials which we have at our own doors, and which we can ourselves produce, and to abstain from buying those raw materials from abroad?
1004
While this may be but a small contribution towards the balance of trade, about which all Members are of necessity gravely anxious, it cannot be disputed that in practically every one of these industries it is raw material—if it is described as such—that can be produced in this country. The only point of difference is that it is not available at such an early period in this country as it is sometimes available abroad. Take the case of cherries. The marketing period for the home bulk crop in this country runs from early July to about the second week in August. The imports from France and Italy, and some from Belgium and Holland, come on to the market before the home crop is marketed in bulk; that is to say, something like two-thirds comes in before our own crops can be marketed. In fact, the price of the imported cherries is higher than the price which the home crop can command. The effect is—and this is one of the reasons why one is impelled to introduce a Measure of this kind—that it takes the cream of the market from those who produce cherries in this country. To some people that may appear a very small matter, but to those concerned in the industry it is a very material matter.
Let us take the case of currants. The season of bulk marketing for the home crop is the second week in July to the end of August. Who will say that we cannot produce first-class currants, black or white, in this country, both in England and in Scotland? Of course we can, and the greater part of the imports from France and Spain, and the smaller proportion from other countries, are marketed again in this case before the bulk of the home crop becomes available. This is no doubt a raw material for canning and jam-making, but if you allow these imports of the foreign fruit to come in, you invite the jam-makers in this country to use it, so that, when our home crop is produced—and good fruit it is—it cannot find a market at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "They use the foreign stuff at a higher price?"] They use it at the time it comes on to the market, and it is a fact that because of that, a large part of the crops which our growers take great care to produce is absolutely unsaleable.
In the ease of gooseberries there is perhaps less urgency, but it is neverthe-

1005
less the case that during recent years a considerable part of the gooseberry crop in this country remained unpicked. Is it to be said that that is either orderly marketing or fair play to the great mass of the people who produce and work upon these crops? In the case of plums, the period of bulk marketing runs from early August to early October. The bulk of the imports from France, Spain and Italy, and some imports from other countries, arrive in May, June and July before the home crop is on the market. The price obtained by imported plums is far higher than that for the home crops. In this way the home grower is again deprived of the cream of the market, and he has every excuse for complaining about that. There are parts of the country where first-class plums can be grown, and one has seen them from time to time left to rot. Neither the public nor the growers get any good from that method of dealing with this question. It is essential that it should be dealt with, and it is in an endeavour to meet it that I am asking for these powers.
7.0 p.m.
Take the case of strawberries. The home crop extends from the middle of June to the end of July. The imports begin in small quantities in April, and it is estimated that rather under two-thirds of the total imports arrive before the home crop is marketed in bulk. This is undoubtedly a prejudice to the home market, and I do not think there will be any public disadvantage by the canning industry and the jam makers having to wait a little longer in order to get from home sources the bulk of the fruit which they require to can or to preserve. That is really the object and aim of the powers which I am asking Parliament to give. All these commodities are fresh perishable fruits. The hon. Member for Pontypool may rest assured that the trade in dried currants is not interfered with in the least. I am constrained to say to the House that while these soft fruits may be the raw material of certain industries, such as the very excellent canning enterprise which we are building up in this country, for Heaven's sake let us use the raw material that we can produce in our own country in preference to that produced elsewhere. If it can be done, it may be a small contribution to the balance of trade.
Mr. LEONARD: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement about early plums, will he explain how last year the home production of plums increased to double that, of the previous year?
Sir J. GILMOUR: Every effort is being made by enterprising people to increase their production, and then it is suddenly eaten into by very early imports which come from climates where these fruits can be introduced at an earlier time, though not necessarily better. It is absolutely detrimental to those people who are putting their capital and their energy into this enterprise. Let us, therefore, try to build up an enterprise which can employ in a healthy occupation a great number of our own people. This is a contribution to an industry which deserves more from this House than it has had in the past.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I must express my disappointment at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would like to ask him some specific questions about these articles. Strawberries have been referred to, and it is suggested that the imports are likely to take the cream from the market. Will he reply to this simple and straightforward question? The production in this country, added to the imports, of strawberries for 1930 was approximately 50 per cent. of the normal quantity of strawberries available to the consumer in this country. Will he tell us why, with a declining import and a constantly falling home production, he still wants to impose those duties on strawberries? He also talked about the imported strawberries taking the cream of the market. How can that be the ease when the price of strawberries in 1930 was double the price in 1913, and in 1929 was almost one and a-half times, while similar conditions prevailed in 1928 and 1927. In no ease since the War has the price of strawberries fallen below 100 per cent. increase over pre-war prices. Surely there has been no taking the cream of the market in regard to strawberries. Is it really the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to increase the production of strawberries in this country If so, will he tell us why the production for the past eight or nine years has fallen to 50 per cent. of the normal production? Here is a commodity in great demand for several months in the year

1007
of which there is no supply comparable with the supply a few years ago.
As to gooseberries, on which the right hon. Gentleman laid such emphasis, it seems curious that, while we produced in this country approximately 600,000 cwt. of gooseberries and imported last year about 16,000 cwt., the right hon. Gentleman should seriously suggest that half of the 600,000 cwt, produced here was left unplucked because somebody imported 16,000 cwt. The right hon. Gentleman should get something more solid on which to base his arguments if he expects the House to take him seriously. Similarly with cherries, the imports have been constantly declining in the past six years. In that case with declining imports there has been a slight increase in home production. Where, then, is the need for imposing a duty on cherries? The cherries produced in this country are largely grown in the South, and only imported cherries reach the people in the North. If you keep out these imported cherries, the population of the North will probably get no cherries at all, and they will have to thank the right hon. Gentleman in the future it they are deprived of cherries in the summer months.
The same arguments apply to the other fruit. In the case of plums the output last year was considerable, and the prices fell to one-half, not because of imported plums, but because of nature's bounty and of lack of organisation. Imposing a duty on imported plums is not going to be a useful step towards securing a favourable balance of trade, towards balancing our Budget or towards helping our fruit growers. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that imports are robbing the home producers of the results of their energy is entirely wrong in principle. We see no justification for these duties and, in view of the very thin explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I have no alternative but to recommend the Members of the Opposition to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
Major MILNER: I should like to draw the attention of the House to another aspect of this question. I have just been looking at one of the excellent pamphlets of the Empire Marketing Board dealing with strawberries in particular. It says:
1008
"Imports of fresh strawberries are much smaller than imports of strawberry pulp. Particulars show that imports of strawberry pulp from the Netherlands alone amount to an average of 148,000 cwt. annually, and in 1930 totalled 152,000 cwt. Those are gross weights, and the actual quantity of pulp is rather less. There are also imports of pulp from other sources, France, Belgium and Russia, although not comparable with the imports from Holland."
The statistics of the imports of fresh strawberries into the United Kingdom show that in the whole of 1930 only 67,680 cwt. were imported so that, comparing the figures of fresh strawberries and pulped strawberries, over double the quantity of pulped strawberries was imported into this country as compared with fresh strawberries. Does not that indicate how absurd, illogical and ill-considered these proposals are? Fresh strawberries are much better for the population of these islands than pulped strawberries, but they are going to be prohibited by the right hon. Gentleman or permitted to come in at a very excessive price, while pulped strawberries will come in free, without any obstruction or objection. The obvious result of these measures in the case of strawberries—and no doubt this applies equally to other commodities—will be to prevent those who have hitherto imported fresh strawberries from doing so, so that the fresh strawberries will be turned into pulped strawberries abroad and imported with chemicals and other preservatives for the population of these islands to eat.
All these fruits, particularly those mentioned in this Amendment, ought to be taken out of the Resolution. It is absurd to prohibit the importation of fresh strawberries and to allow pulped strawberries, with all sorts of preservatives, some of a most objectionable character, to be imported free, particularly when in the past the quantity of pulped fruit imported has exceeded the imports of fresh fruit. These facts indicate how ill-considered these proposals have been. Instead of having that impartial and lengthy inquiry which we were promised during the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the day after the election he instructed his officials to take out these figures, and no doubt he has since been engaged in prevailing on some of his colleagues to allow him to bring this Resolution forward. No doubt others of

1009
his colleagues would have agreed to these measures the day after the election. I would like an explanation from him as to why he is going to deprive the population of this country of fresh fruit, and still to allow pulped fruit, with all these mixtures, to come in free?
Mr. HASLAM: I must confess that I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the large imports of pulped fruits, although I do not draw the same conclusion. The proper conclusion to be drawn from his figures is that pulped fruit, in addition to fresh fruit, should have a duty put upon it. I see he agrees with me.
Major MILNER: If we are going to have duties at all, certainly.
Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that now.
Mr. HASLAM: I hope that I may be allowed to express the hope. I would like to comment on the arguments of the Mover of this Amendment that the working people are so desirous of getting these early fruits to the detriment of the growers. I would like to question that view, and to ask hon. Members opposite if they are certain that the working people of this country are so indifferent to the fate of their fellows labouring on the land, even though in these particular instances it may not involve a very large number of working people—
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman must not forget that we have been putting the point from the very commencement that these duties are not calculated to help the farmer or fruit-grower. All that they can do is to inflict an injury on the great mass of the community.
Mr. HASLAM: The Minister of Agriculture completely answered that argument in his speech just now. He has shown that these imports do take off the cream of the market, and inflict very serious injury on the fruit-growers of this country. I would remind hon. Members opposite that a great number of the fruit-growers of this country are smallholders, in many cases ex-service men, and that in recent years numbers of them have been brought to great poverty and distress through being unable to market
1010
their goods on account of foreign competition. Therefore, I heartily oppose this Amendment.
Mr. C. DUNCAN: Everybody is familiar with the modern slogan "Eat more fruit," and it seems strange that when the people of this country are increasing their consumption of fresh fruit, just when the retailers of fruit have got them to the pitch of perfection in this matter, the Minister of Agriculture should come forward with a proposal to tax fruit. It is a most foolish proposal. The greater use of fruit is producing a better standard of health among our people, and I should have thought its sale would have been encouraged. Anybody walking along the streets must have noted in the fruiterers' shops the tempting selection of fruits from all the ends of the earth—hundreds of thousands of cases of apples, and other kinds of fruit. And yet we are now considering a proposal to put a tax on fruit, to put an end to fruit eating in this country. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) has been pointing out what he regards as the great hardships suffered by the people who grow fruit here and find, when they come to put it on to the market, that there is a glut, and that they do not get that return for their labour which he thinks they ought to have. I am inclined to think he is barking up the wrong tree. After all, fruit is grown in other countries, and a very large quantity of it is sent here in tins and bottles. It is only within recent years that the canning and bottling of fruit has started in this country, and I take the view that every difficulty put in the way of fruit coming into this country will hamper the bottling and canning industry, which is being developed here at so rapid a rate. This new development is worth encouragement, rather than discouragement. After all, the complaint made is that in the season, when so much fruit is thrust upon the market, the demand of the consumers is not sufficient to absorb the whole of it.
Mr. HASLAM: Then it can be bottled.
Mr. DUNCAN: Of course it can, but does not the hon. Member see that he will not help the canning and bottling industry if he limits the quantity of fruit available to it by interposing difficulties in the way of it getting fruit from

1011
abroad to assist it in getting on with its business with all speed? It is important that there should be a still greater development of the bottling and canning industry, because that would enable these gluts of fruit to be dealt with, and ensure the producers getting such a price for it as would justify them increasing their production in years to come. I feel there are wonderful possibilities before this new industry, but that here we are taking a step which is likely to strangle its development. Under the old methods, when there was a, glut of fruit the people who sent it to market found that on occasions it did not realise sufficient money to cover its carriage to Covent Garden. Here we are developing a new system of dealing with the fruit which opens out prospects such as have not before been seen in this country.
When you are dealing with machinery, the quantity of stuff really does not matter. It is like the introduction of the machine-gun into warfare. When each soldier had only his rifle he could fire only one shot at a time, but with a machine-gun he can fire 100 more shots a minute. Therefore, from the mechanical standpoint, we ought not to stand in the way of fruit coming into this country. It would be far wiser to develop our resources for using gluts of fruit in the canning and bottling industry. One learns from the newspapers that bottled strawberries from this country are finding a ready market in America. Hon. Members can see in that the turn of the tide. Instead of this country receiving so much
bottled and canned fruit from America, why should not we send them some of ours? The industry is developing here at a rapid rate—by millions of cans and bottles a year—and we should put no difficulty in the way of it securing fruit.
If the people in other countries are not as wide awake as we are, and send their raw fruit here instead of canning and bottling it at home, why should we prevent our people from canning and bottling it? Those engaged in the canning and bottling industry have shown great wisdom and foresight, and I should have thought everybody would wish to help this new development instead of putting any obstacles in its way. Their products are finding great acceptance, and I am sure they must be realising good prices. We ought to take advantage of the possibilities of developing this trade on mechanical lines, and get away from the old method of plunging all our fruit on to the market at one time, which resulted in our seeing wheelbarrow loads of strawberries or plums being hawked about the streets of London at prices which meant practically giving the stuff away. If the fruit were available for bottling and canning, growers would have a sure market for all they could produce. The possibilities of development are infinite.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 349; Noes, 43.

Division No. 26.]

AYES.

[7.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Burghley, Lord

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Bernays, Robert

Butt, Sir Alfred

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

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (Birk'nh'd.W)

Sevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Castle Stewart, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Blindell, James

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Borodale, Viscount

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Bossom, A. C.

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

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Boulton, W. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Boyce, H. Leslie

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Bracken, Brendan

Chotzner, Alfred James

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Clarke, Frank

Balniel, Lord

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Clarry, Reginald George

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Brass, Captain Sir William

Clayton Dr. George C.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Briant, Frank

Colfox, Major William Philip

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Broadbent, Colonel John

Colville, Major David John

Bateman, A. L.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Conant, R. J. E.

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Brown,Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Cook, Thomas A.

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'tn,Centr'l)

Buchan, John

Cooke, James D.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cranborne, Viscount

Craven-Ellis, William

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Penny, Sir George

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Jamieson, Douglas

Perkins, Waiter R. D.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Jennings, Roland

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Crass, R. H.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Petherick, M.

Crossley, A. C.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Pike, Cecil F.

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

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Potter, John

Davison, Sir William Henry

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Dickle, John P,

Knebworth, Viscount

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Donner, P. W.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Drewe, Cedric

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Ramsden, E.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Leckie, J. A.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Dunglass, Lord

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rea, Walter Russell

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lees-Jones, John

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Ednam, Viscount

Levy, Thomas

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Liddall, Walter S.

Renter, John R.

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Elmley, Viscount

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ropner, Colonel L.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Ross, Ronald D.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Rothschild, James L. de

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Runge, Norah Cecil

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Falle Sir Bertram G.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Flanagan, W. H.

Mabane, William

Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Fraser, Captain Ian

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

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

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworlh, Putney)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Gibson, Charles Granville

McEwen, J. H. F.

Sanderson, sir Frank Barnard

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

McKeag, William

Savery, Samuel Servington

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

McKie. John Hamilton

Scone, Lord

Gledhill, Gilbert

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Selley, Harry R.

Glossop, C. W. H.

McLean, Major Alan

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Graves, Marjorie

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Magnay, Thomas

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Smith, Sir Jonah W, (Barrow-In-F.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

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

Grimston, R. V.

Marjorlbanks, Edward

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Martin, Thomas B.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Hales, Harold K.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

Millar, James Duncan

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L,

Hanbury, Cecil

Mills, Sir Frederick

Spencer. Captain Richard A.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Milne, Charles

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Harbord, Arthur

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Harris, Percy A.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Hartland, George A.

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Stevenson, James

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

Moreing, Adrian C.

Stones, James

Haslam, H. c (Lindsay. Horncastle)

Morgan, Robert H.

Storey, Samuel

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Stourton, John J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Morrison, William Shephard

Strauss, Edward A.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Munro, Patrick

Sutcliffe, Harold

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Nail, Sir Joseph

Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Templeton, William P.

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Thompson, Luke

Hore-Bellsha, Lesile

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Hornby, Frank

North, Captain Edward T.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Horobin, Ian M.

Nunn, William

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Horsbrugh, Florence

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Train, John

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ormiston, Thomas

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Pearson, William G.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Peat, Charles U.

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

1014

1015

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Wood. Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Wragg, Herbert

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Wilson, Clyde T, (West Toxteth)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Wise, Alfred R.

Mr. Shakespeare and Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Withers, Sir John James

Weymouth, Viscount

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hicks, Ernest George

Price, Gabriel

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

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Thorne, William James

Cape, Thomas

John, William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Leonard, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Logan, David Gilbert

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr.

Grundy, Thomas W,

Maxton, James

Gordon Macdonald.

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

Milner, Major James

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in line 35, to leave out the words "plums, strawberries."
Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided Ayes, 345; Noes, 43.

Division No. 27.]

AYES.

[7.38 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds.W.)

Brown,Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

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

Burghley, Lord

Dunglass, Lord

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (Birk'nh'd.W)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Eden, Robert Anthony

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Butler, Richard Austen

Ednam, Viscount

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

Butt, Sir Alfred

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Elmley, Viscount

Aske, Sir William Robert

Castlereagh, Viscount

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Castle Stewart, Earl

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Balley, Eric Alfred George

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Balnief, Lord

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Falle Sir Bertram G.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Flanagan, W. H.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chotzner, Alfred James

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Clarke, Frank

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Bateman, A. L.

Clarry, Reginald George

Fraser, Captain Ian

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Clayton Dr. George C.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th,Centr'l)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Colville, Major David John

Ganzoni, Sir John

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Conant, R. J. E.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Bennett, Cant. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cook, Thomas A.

Gibson, Charles Granville

Bernays, Robert

Cooke, James D.

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

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gledhill, Gilbert

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Craven-Ellis, William

Glossop, C. W. H.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Blinded, James

Cross, R. H.

Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas

Borodale, Viscount

Crossley, A. C.

Graves, Marjorle

Bossom, A. C.

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Boulton, W. W.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro'.W.)

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

Grimston, R. V.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Briant, Frank

Dickle, John P.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Donner, P. W.

Hales, Harold K.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Drewe, Cedric

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

Hanbury, Cecil

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Hanley, Dennis A.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Harbord, Arthur

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Harris, Percy A.

Magnay, Thomas

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

Hartland, George A.

Manningham-buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Haslam H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Marjoribanks, Edward

Savery, Samuel Servington

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Scone, Lord

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Martin, Thomas B.

Selley, Harry R.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

Millar, James Duncan

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mills, Sir Frederick

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Milne, Charles

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Hornby, Frank

Moreing, Adrian C.

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

Horobin, Ian M.

Morgan, Robert H.

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

Horsbrugh, Florence

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Moss, Captain H. J.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Munro, Patrick

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Stevenson, James

Jamieson, Douglas

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Stones, James

Jennings, Roland

North, Captain Edward T.

Storey, Samuel

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Nunn, William

Stourton, John J.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Strauss, Edward A.

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Ormiston, Thomas

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Pearson, William G.

Templeton, William P.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Peat, Charles U.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Penny, Sir George

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

Knebworth, Viscount

Percy, Lord Eustace

Thompson, Luke

Knox, Sir Alfred

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Petherick, M.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Leckle, J. A.

Pickford, Hon, Mary Ada

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pike, Cecil F.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lees-Jones, John

Potter, John

Turton, Robert Hugh

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Levy, Thomas

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Liddall, Walter S.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Ramsay, Capt, A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Ramsden, E.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Rawson. Sir Cooper

Wayland, Sir William A.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Rea, Walter Russell

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Mabane, William

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Weymouth, Viscount

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Whiteside, Borras Noel K.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Remer, John R.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Ross, Ronald D.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

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

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

McEwen, J. H. F.

Rothschild, James L. de

Wise, Alfred R.

McKeag, William

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Withers, Sir John James

McKie, John Hamilton

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wood, Major M. McKenzle (Banff)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Runge, Norah Cecil

Wragg, Herbert

McLean, Major Alan

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskine.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hicks, Ernest George

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

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Hirst. George Henry

Buchanan, George

Edwards, Charles

Jenkins, Sir William

Cape, Thomas

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

John, William

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Grundy, Thomas W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Daggar, George

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

Kirkwood, David

1018

1019

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Owen, Major Goronwy

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Lawson, John James

Price, Gabriel

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Leonard, William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Logan, David Gilbert

Thorne, William James

Lunn, William

Tinker, John Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

Maxton, James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Milner, Major James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, to leave out lines 36 to 38.
This Amendment would delete from the Resolution all the words relating to fresh vegetables, and I desire to show to the House as clearly as I can which of the articles included in this list may be regarded as luxury vegetables, and which of them, on the other hand, may be regarded as vegetables in ordinary use in the households of this land. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been fair to the House since he introduced this Resolution. I put to him one or two specific technical questions last evening, and he never said a single word in reply to them. Indeed, I thought once that it was a little discourteous on his part, and I trust that this evening, before I sit down, he will be good enough to do me the honour of taking some notice of what I have said. I know that one cannot expect very much from a Government of this kind, but I think we ought at any rate to receive answers to specific questions which arise on this Resolution.
The first complaint that we have to make in this connection is that the House is in a grave difficulty in dealing with this problem of fresh vegetables, because, in the official Trade and Navigation Accounts of the United Kingdom, some of these items are not specified at, all, and, consequently, we are at a disadvantage to start with. The questions that I am going to put to the right hon. Gentleman are very specific. In the first place, I would like to know how many hundredweights of asparagus come to this country in a year. That is a very proper question to ask, because, before we levy a duty upon an article of this kind, or prohibit its coining in, we ought to know definitely what is the quantity that we are going to prohibit. We have that information with regard to potatoes and tomatoes, but I should like to go through the list, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will only answer my questions tonight, I shall be a very happy man indeed. I am not going to insult him by
1020
saying that he cannot answer them, but I must say that he behaved last evening, in dealing with the Debate in Committee, as though he knew very little about the subject.
Let me ask him if he can give to the House the quantities separately imported into this country of asparagus, green beans, broccoli and cauliflowers, carrots—we had a few of the latter at the General Election, but the quantity was not measurable even then—chicory, cucumbers, endive, lettuce, mushrooms, green peas and turnips. As I have said, I have been able to find, in the official document which shows the imports and exports into and from this country, the total quantities of tomatoes and potatoes imported, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a highly educated Scotsman and, I understand, a very intelligent farmer, the quantity of turnips that comes into this country in a year. That is too a very proper question to ask in the Mother of Parliaments. Let me repeat it. This is the oldest democratic assembly in the world, the centre of the mightiest Empire the world has ever seen, and we have to ask the right hon. Gentleman in this assembly to-night bow many turnips arrive at our ports in 12 months? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has brought these details and trivialities before the Mother of Parliaments. I think that that is a very proper question, and that I am quite in order in asking it. I would not dare to ask him how many green peas arrive here, but I think it is quite proper to ask what is the quantity in pounds, or hundredweights, or tons, as the case may he. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is taking notice of me now, and perhaps he will therefore deal with me a little more gently than he did last evening.
There is another document which is very nearly as official as the one which I have already mentioned, a Government document issued by the Board of Trade. I have recently come across this other document, which is semi-official, namely,

1021
the Report of the chamber of Agriculture, and the chamber of Agriculture in this country is in effect the Tory party. I cannot see the name of a single Liberal on its committee, or even of any of the fifty-fifty Liberals, of whom there are many about us just now. With regard to potatoes and tomatoes the Report of the chamber of Agriculture is very clear. It declares that the outstanding feature of the potato situation is the fact that this Country is normally capable of producing more than all its requirements in respect of main-crop potatoes. That is news to me, but it is the statement of the Tory party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is chairman of the committee that issued this report, and he knows everything about it, or, apparently, he affects to know. The first thing, therefore, that we ought to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: If we prohibit early potatoes from coming into this country, is it conceivable at any time that the producers in our own land will satisfy the requirements of our people in that respect?
There is another thing that, I should like to know. The list with which we are dealing coincides very nearly with the Report of the chamber of Agriculture, otherwise the Farmers' Union, otherwise the Tory party. They go much beyond asparagus, and I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why artichokes are not included in the list. That again, I think, is a very proper question. If we are going to be whole-hoggers in this tariff business, we ought to know why the list which is presented to us to-night does not coincide in every minute detail with the list issued by those people who have been urging the Government to impose tariffs on every commodity that comes into this country. That official list includes asparagus, cabbages, cauliflowers, fresh cucumbers, lettuces, fresh peas, and beans. It is, in effect, as I have said, a Tory list, and, as I have said many times from public platforms, this Government is a Tory Government and not a National Government. Everyone inside the Government who affects to call himself a Liberal, either of the left or of the right wing, in fact now belongs to the Tory party. Let me carry the examination of this proposal a
1022
stage further. I have taken the trouble to look up the figures relating to fruits, and, although I should not be in order if I dwelt unduly on that aspect of the question, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this: There is an item in the Trade and Navigation Returns called:
"Raw vegetables of other descriptions;"
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the items in his list, other than potatoes and tomatoes, come under that lump sum in the Trade and Navigation Returns.
8.0 p.m.
We are informed that this Resolution is deliberately designed to protect the home grower by preventing the import from foreign countries of vegetables that can be produced in our own land. I have been in touch with some experts on this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I tell him what the expert—the merchant—says about it. He says that the quantity of green beans imported into this country is infinitesimal—it is too small, in fact, even for a National Government to take notice of, and that is saying a great deal. Again, take mushrooms. As I said last night, this is a mushroom Government. It was born in the darkness, and, when the light of day shines brightly upon it, it will disappear like toadstools. That is the sort of Government that we have in this country at the moment. Let me pursue the point with regard to mushrooms. I am trying to find out what quantities of these commodities are imported into this country, because if none of these commodities are imported, why put on a prohibitive duty against them? Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what happens in Manchester, where I live. People say it rains more in Manchester than elsewhere. It does not. It takes longer to come down, that is all. Manchester is the second largest distributing centre of fresh fruit and vegetables in the country. I have done very well so far in securing the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I should imagine, from the consultations that are going on behind him now, that he will answer some of the questions which I am putting to him. Not more than 1,000 lbs. weight of mushrooms were sold in the whole of the Manchester area last, week Covering a

1023
population of about 15,000,000 in this distributing centre, and here we have the National Government prohibiting the humble mushroom from Coming into the country. If they will do that to the mushroom, what will they do to the turnip?
I am informed authoritatively that we could not produce our own requirements in cauliflowers in any circumstances whatever. I do not want to appear Conceited about this matter. I have travelled in 12 foreign countries in the last few years, and I have been in one country where they cannot grow cabbages or cauliflowers or any fruit or vegetables of any kind whatever. That is Iceland, where all the depressions Come from. In this country, we can grow some cauliflowers, but we cannot possibly grow enough to provide the whole of the requirements of the community. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the Riviera in the winter, to Italy, or Spain or France, he will find that nature excels and that certain of these articles can be produced better and cheaper and earlier than the climatic conditions of this country will ever allow. The Government in this Motion is practically spitting in the face of Nature herself. The blessings of Nature can come from Spain and France and Italy, and the National Government say in effect: We will not have them.
I think my arguments are very powerful, because they do not come from me at all but from people who are well informed on the subject. I have looked in the concise oxford Dictionary for the meaning of "endive" and I think it would he worth while for the right hon. Gentleman, who I undestand has been highly trained and well educated, to tell us what is endive. Until I saw it on this list I had never heard of it in my life. It is not in our working-class vocabulary at all, and I am not so sure that my hon. Friends around me are any more enlightened on the matter than I am and, for their edification, I had better read what it is. Endive is a "Species of chicory, with curled leaves, used as salad for the rich."
I think I have now put a few very pertinent questions to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must really put a few more for my own information. The list that we
1024
have here is, apart from potatoes and tomatoes, infinitesimal so far as imports are concerned. But I must turn to the turnip. What on earth has the turnip done to offend the National Government? How many turnips come to this country, to start with? As an old farm labourer, I am entitled to ask if this turnip is a white or a red or a yellow one. The right hon. Gentleman, being a farmer, will be able to reply, and be will, I am certain, reply very much more intelligently than he did last evening. I have ventured to give him one or two points which may enlighten his own Department. Government Departments can sometimes be enlightened by laymen like ourselves.
An hon. Member opposite was very eloquent last evening about the land. He is one of those who are always pressing the Government to do more. I suppose, if he had his way, artichokes would be taxed. I feel sure he ought to get up tonight on behalf of his constituency and deliver another eloquent oration in favour of the inclusion of artichokes. There must be something radically wrong with a National Government that does not include that article in this Motion.
I am informed—I make all these qualifications to show how ignorant I am on the subject, and I think the right hon. Gentleman falls almost in the same category. He only tells us what he is informed. The difference between him and myself is that I tell the House all that I am informed about, and he does not. I hope I shall induce him by these very provocative remarks to deal with this important point. I am informed too that some of our inerc1ants actually finance the foreigner to grow these vegetables in order to send them to this Country. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about that? Some of the merchants in Covent Garden, Leeds and Manchester, who handle these commodities, may actually finance the potato growers in France, Spain and elsewhere, and the growers of these other commodities in foreign countries. If that is true, where is their patriotism to send to foreign countries finance to grow the very commodities that they say ought to be grown here I None of these people who send finance abroad are members of the Labour party, I am sure. We are not very rich either in numbers or otherwise.

1025
I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman last night, and I wonder whether he will condescend to reply to it if I put it again. I asked him how his Department was going to impose duties on goods that were consigned to this Country. Some hon. Members will know what the word "consignment" means. A merchant in covent Garden, or in Smithfield Market, Manchester, will arrange for goods to Come from France or Spain without an agreement as to price at all. They simply come, and, when they are sold, the merchant who buys them pays the foreign producer the amount that he has received on sale in this country, minus the expenses and his own profit. If the merchant cannot find out the amount that he receives until the commodities are actually sold, how is it possible to impose a duty at the port? I should imagine it is an impossibility.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the question the hon. Member is now putting would be more appropriate to the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. DAVIES: I have clone very well up to now without being called to order, and I submit to your Ruling at once. We have dealt in. a previous Amendment with fresh fruits, and I am dealing now with fresh vegetables. We never got this point cleared up last night, and I will put it once again. The consumption of fruit and vegetables since 1910 has shown a remarkable growth. All that we have in these returns is a statement as to the quantity of imports. We have never been able to get, from any official document that I have seen, what is the total consumption of home-grown vegetables and fruit. This is what I find. The total imports of vegetables for 11 months in 1910 were about 7,500,000 cwts., potatoes:3,750,000 cwts. or thereabouts, and tomatoes a little over 1,000,000 cwts. For the 10 months of 1931 vegetables including tomatoes were nearly 10,000,000 cwts., and potatoes 12,000,000 cwts.
That is hardly sufficient for my purpose, because I want to give some details as to the total Consumption apart from imports on the first point that I am going to make, I feel sure that this argument will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman,
1026
because the words "Scottish crop" come in my memorandum. He is always very keen about Scotland. I do not know whether he has an international mind yet, but we may get an answer from him to-night which will show that he has left the Scottish idea of things and will listen to some of us who represent England in this House. The Scottish crop in 1930 was 860,000 tons, and the average is 976,400 tons. The normal Consumption of potatoes in England and Wales is a little over 3,000,000 tons and in Scotland 976,000 tons, and the imports are 373,000 tons. I should like to know if anyone can find out whether the Scottish people eat more potatoes pro rata to the population than we do. I do not like to put that to the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be very interesting to know.
I think I have said enough to prove that we are entitled to challenge what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, especially in relation to fresh fruit and vegetables. Suppose that the argument held good, that we ought to impose a duty on fresh fruit and cut flowers, the right hon. Gentleman seriously cannot get away with the argument that some of the vegetables are luxuries. I think that we have proved conclusively that tomatoes, at any rate, cannot be regarded as luxuries any more. There were hon. Gentlemen behind me last night who said that English tomatoes had never been sold at any time in some of the poor quarters of London. If foreign tomatoes are prohibited, as is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, the English crop of tomatoes will be too costly, and the poor people of this country will never be able to buy tomatoes at all.
Major BRAITHWAITE: We shall grow more.
Mr. DAVIES: Grow more at about twice the price, I suppose. It. is no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing with those of us who belong to the working class of this Country that all we need do is to grow more tomatoes. The English grower will still charge 9d. or 10d. a lb., whereas the Dutch tomatoes are sold for 4d. or 5d. a lb. What is the use therefore of arguing that we are not precluding the working classes from getting cheap tomatoes? The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well that whenever a duty or a tariff of this kind

1027
is imposed in any country in the world not only is the price of the commodity raised, but it is the intention of the people who impose the tariff to increase prices. That is already understood. I said last night that I saw the late Lord Melchett cross the Floor of the House of commons from the Liberal party to the Tory party and heard him say that he was disgusted with his colleagues in the Tory party when they said that tariffs did not raise prices. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about motor cars?"] I should not be allowed to deal with motor cars, otherwise, I would be prepared to deal with that matter also. I have not a car myself, but, if I had one, it would be a British car. I should not be like some so-called patriots who buy foreign cars, and then shout "Buy British."
I do not wish to dwell too long upon this subject, as I think that I have explained myself fairly fully on the matter. I conclude by saying that we are not going to allow the Government to use the argument that these commodities are luxury commodities. It is the deliberate intention of the Tory party which controls the National Government, to tax the food of the people, and if any members of the Liberal party, or the Labour party, so-called, in that Government dare challenge the Tory party policy on tariffs I know what will happen to them. Somebody shouted across the Floor of the House of Commons this afternoon, "Get on or get out!" and that is the spirit of the Tory party already towards every member of the Liberal party or the so-called Labour party in the Government at the moment. I shall be astonished if 12 months hence any but members of the Tory party are left in the Government. They will clear out the lot unless the Liberals, so-called, who are in the National Government at the moment become Tory in the meantime. They are of course getting on very nicely towards Toryism. The President of the Board of Trade has astonished all his friends, particularly his NonCOnformist friends, at the pace he travels towards political destruction and Toryism, which mean the same thing as far as we are Concerned.
I am very pleased to have been able to move the Amendment, and I am hopeful
1028
that the right hon. Gentleman may see his way clear, as soon as I sit down, to do me and the party to which I belong the honour of giving as replies to these questions I have put. I can never believe that he is not sufficiently well-informed to be able to do so. His speech last night was a masterpiece of saying a lot and meaning nothing. I do not know whether he will reply in the same strain to-night. Any way, I leave the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust that we on these benches have made it perfectly clear to the people of this country who voted for the party opposite that what we said at the General Election has come true quicker than we ever thought possible, namely, that the Government deliberately and designedly, in spite of their promises not to do so, intend to tax the food of the people, and that this is the first instalment of that policy.
Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
The points covered in the Amendment are very interesting, and I would not have got up to speak on the subject—especially as last night one or two of the Noble Lords opposite seemed to think that they were the only persons who understood these matters—but for the fact that, although I am not an agriculturist in the remotest sense of the word—I am a trained engineer and a member of the Engineers' Union—a few years ago I had control of 10 acres of land six miles from here. We were asked to allow the land and the building upon it to be given over to the Government to be used during the War as a hospital for wounded soldiers. Part of the 10 acres was turned into a vegetable garden for the production of the very things which are mentioned here. A house of timber was built upon it, and a Frenchman and his wife were put in charge.
There can be no doubt that there are wonderful possibilities in this country for the production of the vegetables mentioned here. I watched the processes of this garden for a period of three years, and in one year, on about three acres of land, they made a profit of £350. That, of course, was during the War when prices were very high and you could get is. 6d. for a cucumber. This is a very simple fact which indicates the possibilities there are in the growing of

1029
these vegetables, especially under the French system. It is ridiculous to suggest that either the ordinary man on a small allotment or a farmer will have anything like a chance of producing these vegetables on the same plan as they are produced in other countries. For instance, in the garden over which I had some control a very large amount of vegetables were produced under little glass cloches. The garden was almost like a lake in the sun because of the glass cloches which covered it. In other parts of the garden were glass frames, and the whole of the garden was covered with a network of pipes for supplying water, so that at any moment of the day the plants could be watered and attended to. It was obvious to anybody, even to those who like myself did not pretend to know anything about gardening, that a very large sum of money had to be spent, not only in the provision of water pipes and a water supply, but on glass cloches to cover the products when it was cold at night. There could be no doubt that there were wonderful possibilities along those lines. By this method they have grown as many as four crops one after the other in some of the little cloches.
I would not like to say what amount of capital was expended on those three acres of land, but it was far beyond what the ordinary farmer or smallholder would be able to provide. Besides, there can be no doubt that the people engaged in that kind of production could not confine their work to the ordinary hours worked by an agricultural labourer. If the Act of Parliament governing wages and hours of labour were applied to these people, they would break it every day. If there were a form of slavery in the world, I think that that form of slavery would be the kind of market gardening I saw on this piece of land over which I had some control. The man and his wife and children worked all the hours of the day and even got up during the night, if it came on Cold, to cover up some of the, cloches with covers which they had for the purpose.
To make this kind of cultivation a success is, obviously, beyond the ordinary agricultural style of production in this Country. It is not like growing a field of turnips or cabbages. It has to be run on a specialised plan, where large capital is employed, a special water
1030
supply laid on, with special water pipes, and the highest possible quality of skilled labour used. There is a wonderful opportunity in this Country, provided that the capital and the kind of skill necessary are forthcoming. I believe that the system is still in operation successfully in this country. I believe that the man who worked on the piece of land to which I have referred is now operating somewhere near Brighton, for the same people, but instead of three acres of land he is handling eight acres. If the same methods were employed by the same type of labour and with the same expenditure of capital, the same results could be produced in this country? as in France. What is to stop people from going on with that in this Country? Avenues of production are opening out. A change is taking place in agriculture, as in every other industry, but, if hon. Members think that by the imposition of taxes they are going to bring about any great change in the habits of the people, they are greatly mistaken.
There is no magic about this business. It is essential that the requisite kind of skill should be employed and the amount of capital necessary to deal with the land should be available. The soil of the three acres in question was the most valuable soil to be found anywhere within 50 miles of London. An extraordinary supply of manure was kept, and when the garden was given up the whole of the soil was removed to the new place that had been taken. That shows that the kind of vegetables that are imported into this country can be produced here, but there has been very little, if any, development along those lines. The possibilities are there, but it means a kind of skill in the method of cultivation and an employment of capital which are far beyond what is ordinarily used in farming or smallholdings. These schemes have been tried in this country and are now in operation in the vicinity of Brighton, and there is nothing to prevent people who desire to go in for this method of cultivation from producing these early vegetables, just as they do in France or anywhere else—such as carrots, turnips, lettuce, cauliflower, etc.
8.30 p.m.
Putting a tax on these things will not give the people who are to cultivate the

1031
land the necessary degree of intelligence. It is essential, first, that they should have the capital to lay down the necessary plant, in order to produce the vegetables and to get the pick of the market. It was done within six miles of this House during the War, and there was no Protection for it. This particular gardener was first in the market at covent Garden. I am surprised that there are people in this Country who seem to imagine that you must pass some Act of Parliament in order to give some section of the community some special advantage to induce them to do what is already being done successfully and at a very high rate of profit in this country. The matter is really one for initiative and the employment of a greater amount of capital on a given area of land than ordinarily applies. Taxing these commodities will not give the people the plan and the method to be employed. This method of cultivation can be seen in France, where it has been developed to a very great extent. I do not know whether they have taxation on vegetables there, but I do know that they send vegetables here and that they have a system of marketing and selecting their goods which enables them to obtain the highest prices.
I fail to see what earthly good it will do to put taxes on these vegetables. It may be that it will prevent the people of this Country from getting them. If that is the object, one can understand it. We have 10 commandments, and we do not want an 11th commandment: "Thou shall not have fresh vegetables, including broccoli, tomatoes, carrots, turnips and the rest of it." It is futile and foolish to put on taxes, when the opportunity is open for anyone who cares to undertake it to make the business just as great a success in this country as in France or anywhere else. I have seen this thing done in this country. I have gone round the garden day by day to see the developments that took place, and I have marvelled at the skill in the production of these early vegetables. The market at covent Garden is waiting for our people to get busy, if they care to take up this method of cultivation.
Mr. MANDER: I desire to say a few words from the point of view of the con-
1032
sumer, because my constituents have to purchase the kind of commodities, or some of them referred to, in the Resolution. Any proposal that Comes from the Government will, I hope, always be received by me with sympathy and with the desire to find agreement wherever I possibly can, but I am bound to say that the proposals before the House cause me and others who sit on these benches considerable embarrassment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something that will reassure us that we are not being asked to vote for something which means the introduction of a system of food taxes. There can be no doubt that these proposals do raise the issue of food taxes, and there are a great many Members of this House, not only on the Liberal benches and the Labour benches, but many conservative Members, who gave definite and specific pledges during the General Election that they would not vote for food taxes.
The point is: do these particular food taxes Come within the meaning of that pledge? There are certain things which I know do not come within that pledge. I am not going to refer to flowers, because we are not discussing that matter, and, obviously, flowers, while they give light and fragrance to life, are not necessaries; we do not eat them. There is, however, nothing more interesting, if you are studying the rise and fall in the price of commodities, than to study the prices of the many beautiful flowers in London now varying from neighbourhood to neighbourhood and whether they are bought from a shop or from a barrow in the street. I agree also that you cannot say that early strawberries or early asparagus are necessaries and that a tax on these is any breach of a pledge. There is a great deal to be said for the point of view that we are rather spoilt by an organisation which has provided us all the year round with the choicest fruits of the earth and that a few months interval would whet our appetites and make us all the more eager to eat fruit, and English fruit. We get oranges all the year round. It is really possible to have too much of a good thing. In this country we are always crying out for sunshine, but those who have spent any time in Egypt, as I have, where there is continuous sunshine all the year round

1033
know that one is anxious for cloud and a rain storm now and then by way of variation.
But when you go beyond these articles, which are clearly luxury articles, and come to the case of potatoes and tomatoes, cauliflower and broccoli, you come to something which does require considerable justification from the point of view of those who are pledged not to tax food. I take it that the pledge not to tax food means food which is consumed by the masses of the population of the country. From inquiries I have made there is no doubt that these articles are consumed by the poorest of the poor; that is potatoes, tomatoes, cauliflower and broccoli. Potatoes come in from April to May from the Canary Islands, and the result of their importation is to keep down prices to a certain extent. If you are going to restrict this importation then the price of potatoes must to a certain extent go up; and you have this further point, that we export regularly from this country, from Lincolnshire and Scotland, 20,000 tons of seed potatoes of the value of £150,000, and that trade will be endangered if proposals of this kind go forward.
This year there is also the danger of a shortage of 25 per cent. in the normal supplies of potatoes, which is bound to cause a rise in price, and if on the top of that you are going to increase the price further by a tax on potatoes, possibly a tax of 100 per cent., you are going to cause an unnecessary and possibly an unfair rise in the cost of living of the working classes of the Country. Broccoli and cauliflower come in from November to March from St. Malo, France and from Italy, and there is a certain amount produced in cornwall at the same time. These are eaten by the poor, and if you tax them at the high rate that is possible you are going to increase the price of this commodity. Tomatoes Come in all the winter from November onwards from the canary Islands; none from elsewhere. They are a favourite article of food in the poorest districts of this country; tomatoes with the daily bacon are a popular feature of the table, and I know that many miners often take tomato sandwiches down the mine with them. It is perfectly clear that you are not dealing with something which only appears on the tables of
1034
those who dine at the Ritz or the carlton but with something which appears in the humblest homes of the Country.
I do not want to be placed in the position of opposing the Government on anything, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to say something which will show that these proposals do not tend in the direction which one fears. I hope it is perfectly clear that there is to be no interference with any of the goods which come from the channel Islands, from Guernsey and Jersey. Whatever happens, I hope that they will be allowed to come in perfectly free. It seems to me that there is a good deal to be said for transferring the administration of these duties from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Board of Trade. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to this matter—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that point does not arise on the Amendment.
Mr. MANDER: I anticipated, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that possibly you would take that view. There is one point I should like to put to the Government. It is always a great delight and pleasure to listen to the Minister of Agriculture expounding and justifying proposals be brings before this House, and I am sure that he has said everything he can in support of this Measure. But his words naturally have greater influence and persuasive power with conservative supporters of the National Government. Liberal supporters of the National Government would be greatly assisted in the course they have to take on matters like this if they could have a justification and an explanation of a measure like this front the Home Secretary or the President of the Board of Education, or the Secretary of State for Scotland. We know their views quite well, and also that they can only have consented to these proposals because they think they are necessary in the national interest and are not widely divergent from the views we hold as a party.
I hope that we may have the advantage of some statement from Liberal Members of the Government, because Liberal supporters of the Government are in a position of considerable difficulty, a position in which they do not want to be placed, because they desire to be loyal and faithful supporters of the National Govern-

1035
ment. I wish it were possible for the Government to have a mentor like the Roman Emperors of old. When a Roman Emperor was driven in triumph through the streets of Rome it was the custom for a slave to ride beside him whose duty it was to whisper to him every now and then "Remember, thou too art mortal." I wish it were possible for the Government to have some mentor who would say to them every now and then, "Remember you are a National Government not a conservative Government." I hope the Government are not going to be led astray by extremists and are not going to do anything which will make it difficult, and finally impossible, for those on these benches who are supporters of the National Government to continue that support.
Sir ERNEST SHEPPEFISON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speeches of the Mover of the Amendment and of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander). The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton mentioned that the Liberal Members of the Cabinet were being pushed on by the conservative Members of the Cabinet. We feel that the conservative Members of the Cabinet are being retarded by the Liberal Members of the Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made some joke upon this Measure, in that it referred to turnips and mushrooms, but he made no mention that it referred to green peas, new potatoes, cauliflowers and so on. Those are articles which are to be brought within the scope of the Bill, and their inclusion will do a very great deal to help a section of the arable industry in this country. I wish that the Government proposal had been far more comprehensive than it is, hut so far as it goes I wish to express my appreciation of it as an agriculturist. I sometimes think that many of the agricultural Community do not yet appreciate to what extent the Bill when passed will help them. Reference has been made to cauliflowers. The hon. Member opposite said that this Country Could not be self-supporting so far as cauliflowers were Concerned. Why has it not been self-supporting Simply because the cream of the market for vegetables has been taken off by imports from abroad which
1036
have reached this country at an early date.
Take the case of carrots. Our climate is not as favourable as the climate of the South of France for growing things early. A farmer may plant his carrots in January or early February in the hope of getting them on the market early. But we get cold weather in March and April, and however great the farmer's efforts he finds that the market is flooded with carrots from the South of France and elsewhere. The Bill will give the market to the British farmer for those early carrots and for such things as cauliflowers. The Bill will help to extend the market gardening section of agriculture. Let me pass to new potatoes. The argument has been used that there was no trouble for the British producer of potatoes except when there was a surplus. Why two years ago was there a large surplus of British potatoes? Because the market was taken away from the old English potatoes in March and April and May. In the past the English grower of main crop potatoes could look to a, Consumption in March, April and May. In the last few years in the early part of March potatoes have come in from Algeria, and then from the South of France, and the market for potatoes in March, April and May has been taken away from the British farmer. That was the cause of the slump in the potato market two years ago.
If this Bill becomes law the British farmer will know next year that he will have a certain market for his produce, a market that will extend to the months of April and May, and he will not flood the market with his produce in the earlier months. He will know next spring that if he will make the effort to grow cauliflowers and carrots and more of the things mentioned in the Schedule, he will have a market for them. The industrial towns of England should look to the English land as the garden that will provide British fruits, vegetables and foods for the people, just as the occupants of a house look to the garden around the house to supply fresh fruits and vegetables. We can then look for the more bulky foodstuffs from the other parts of the Empire and elsewhere. This proposal is a step in the right direction, and though I would have liked to see it extended to many more articles,

1037
yet, as far as it goes, I am definitely of opinion that it will do a very great deal to help British agriculture. That is its one purpose. It will function in another way, in that it will help to improve the trade balance of the country by curtailing the importation of early vegetables and fruits and so saving the cost of those imports.
Mr. COCKS: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) presented the pathetic spectacle of a good man struggling with adversity, of a Liberal Member wrestling with his pledges. I gathered that during the election he pledged himself not to vote for any food taxes. Now be pathetically asks the Minister of Agriculture to assure him that all the products mentioned in this Schedule are not food. The hon. Member said, in effect, "I am not going to vote for a tax on food. I do not mind voting for a tax on early strawberries, for I do not regard them as a food at all. I do not mind voting for a tax on early asparagus, for I do not consider that to be a food of the people either. But I want the Minister to tell me something about turnips. Will he assure me that turnips are not food?" I do not know whether the. Minister will say: "Ah, my friend, you can vote for that safely, and you will not break your pledge." Then there are the tomatoes which, as the hon. Member said, are taken down into the mines by the miners. Are they food? I wonder what the Minister is going to say to the hon. Member about them. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to salve the Conscience of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton in that respect'? What about broccoli, what about cauliflowers, and, lastly, what about carrots? I am afraid when it comes to these the Minister will have to give up the attempt to save the soul of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.
The hon. Member stated on platforms during the election that he was not going to vote for any food taxes, but he wants to support the National Government. If he reads through this list of articles, I feel that, as a conscientious and honourable man, he will be found in the same Lobby with us. As far as I am Concerned I am a little bit of a heretic on this question. That is to say, having studied the tariff problem for nearly 30 years I
1038
have finally Come to the Conclusion that both the merits and demerits of tariffs are greatly exaggerated on both sides. Anyhow, we in the Labour party are not opposed to the regulation of imports, and I think that point ought to be made quite clear. We are in favour of it, and in the last Parliament we advocated the regulation of imports by means of import boards.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of the regulation of imports cannot arise on this Amendment.
Mr. COCKS: I was not going to enter into details on that point. I merely mention that we are not opposed to the regulation of imports. As far as tariffs are Concerned I am not going to rise in passionate indignation to oppose a tariff on early asparagus or strawberries at half-a-crown a pound, but the Government are optimistic if they think that by stopping the importation of asparagus and strawberries, they are going to rectify the exchanges or prevent the attempt of the French Government to destroy the pound sterling. I am prepared to prohibit the importation of luxury goods including champagnes and French silks. I rise, however, chiefly for the purpose of referring to tomatoes, about which I have some rather strong views. It was explained last night that the luxury tomatoes are the British-grown tomatoes. There is no question of the importation of tomatoes being prevented because they are luxuries, because they come in earlier and because they catch the early market.
9.0 p.m.
The most expensive tomatoes, those which are really luxuries, are British-grown, and the imported tomatoes are the cheap tomatoes which are the food of the people. The two do not compete and because we import tomatoes from foreign parts, we are able to have tomatoes all the year round. Tomatoes come here in January from the canary Islands at the price of 5s. 3d. per 12 1bs. In February the same tomatoes are 5s. 11d.; in March 5s. 1d.; in April 5s. 3d.; in May 4s. 11d.; in June 4s.; in July 4s. 6d. Then the canary Islands tomatoes cease to come in, and in August we get the Dutch tomatoes at 2s. 8d. In September the same tomatoes are 2s. 3d., in october 3s. 6d., and in November 3s. 8d. In December we go back to

1039
the Canary Islands tomatoes again, and we get them in at 5s. 5d. That is the whole range of the cheap tomatoes. What about the British tomatoes. They are not available until April, and they are 31s. 6d. for 12 1bs. In the same month the British tomatoes are selling at 31s. 6d. and the foreign tomatoes at 5s. 3d. There is no competition there. These are two entirely different classes of commodity, and a tariff upon these foreign cheap tomatoes will not help the British grower at all. What it will do will be to increase the Cost of the food of the people.
Major BRAITHWAITE: What about Empire-grown tomatoes?
Mr. COCKS: The Empire tomatoes are to come in free. You do not want to put anything upon them at all. You only propose to put a tariff upon the cheap foreign tomatoes.
Major BRAITHWAITE: And take the Empire tomatoes.
Mr. COCKS: There is nothing about Empire tomatoes in the list. My point is that you are not protecting the homegrown tomatoes. As regards channel Island tomatoes, they are very high-priced also—I think 28s. You are putting a tax on the canary Island tomatoes—a different commodity altogether—and my contention is that you are not going to help the British grower but you are going to make food dearer for the worker by doing so. That point was not answered by the Minister last night. I gathered from his speech earlier to-day that he did not answer a good many points, but that is one specific and important point with which he ought to deal. The coming winter is going to be very tragic and dreadful for millions of our fellow-subjects. It is going to he a very bad time for the unemployed, for the poor, for those who are being tortured at the present time under the public assistance committees by the means test. I am not going to be a party to making the case of those who are going through such a terrible time worse by voting for another tax upon their food. I am entirely opposed to such a proposal, and I think that other hon. Members here do not want to increase the cost of living to the unemployed and the poor.
1040
I have every sympathy for the growers of tomatoes at Worthing. I want to see them get a fair price for their products, but we know that there is a great difference between the price at which tomatoes are sold in the shops and the price received by the grower in Worthing, and other places. I remember that in the Linlithgow Report some years ago, details were given of a case in which a consignment of tomatoes was traced from where the tomatoes were grown, somewhere on the Sussex coast, to a shop in Bath where they were sold, after having passed through several hands. I speak from memory but I believe that the price at which they were sold in the shop was about eight times the price received by the grower. That is a bad thing and ought to be remedied, but it can be remedied only by better marketing and by cutting out all the different hands through which the tomatoes pass in their transit from the grower to the shop. It is not going to be remedied by a tariff which will affect a different kind of tomatoes altogether. As I say, by putting on this tariff on tomatoes you increase the cost of living to the poor and you do not benefit the grower at all. Unless the Minister can give a satisfactory reply to that proposition, I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) had some complaint against me for not having answered all the numerous questions which had been put to me in the Debate yesterday, but I have endeavoured to give the House fairly full information on the problems which we are discussing. This Amendment, if it were carried, would clearly rule out of the operation of the orders which I propose to make all fresh vegetables. That is the object of it. Can it honestly be said that fresh vegetables cannot be produced in this country by our people, and is it contended that the very early importation into this country of what in their earliest forms are very often extreme luxury products is a justifiable thing in the present circumstances?
The hon. Member for Westhoughton wanted to know all about the quantities of all the various vegetables included in the list. I do not propose to weary the House by going into the full list of the quantities of these vegetables. If the

1041
hon. Gentleman wishes that, he can no doubt put down a question, unstarred, and get it, but I will give the House, in deference to what the hon. Gentleman has asked for, some of the values at any rate of the total imports of some of these things which we are discussing; and I suggest that while these total amounts of money values, in relation to the general trade balance, may be comparatively small, yet they are sufficiently great to justify us in encouraging our growers to fill in this gap and so to save that expenditure.
If you take the question of asparagus, something like £200,000 worth of it is imported into this island. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that he had seen experts upon the problem of beans. Whatever the experts may have said to him, at any rate this remains a fact, that we import into this country something like, 23,000 worth of beans, 300,000 worth of cauliflower and broccoli, £330,000 worth of carrots, £120,000 worth of cucumbers, £240,000 worth of lettuce, and £170,000 worth of mushrooms. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if mushrooms were an item which should be a matter of laughter in this House, but mushrooms can be produced all the year round in this country, and it is only necessary to give this encourgement to the producers, and I am satisfied that they can produce them.
I have been asked if, in all the cases with which we propose to deal, we can satisfy the demand. In some of the cases of the early luxury things, I do not want to satisfy the demands—I quite frankly think it is right that that demand should not be satisfied—but with regard to some parts of this production, I contend that by the action which we are taking, by the encouragement which we are holding out, it will be possible to satisfy that demand, and, indeed, the orders which I shall frame will be framed with the object of stimulating and encouraging production in this country and not unduly or entirely in some cases shutting out these things which Come in. Artichokes were left out because I considered that that trade was too small. I was asked about turnips. Turnips, after all, are described as tender turnips. They are not the ordinary turnips that are used in this country, but they are the very earliest varieties which come from abroad. Is it
1042
to be said that we cannot do without them, or is it to be said that we could not, under glass or in other circumstances probably, make good what is required?
I have tried, to the best of my ability, to understand the intentions of the hon. Members opposite, and I think I do. They say, as every Opposition is entitled to say: "Here are the Government trying to deal with this problem in a foolish manner, in an insufficient manner," and so on. If I turn to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) for a moment, he appealed to me to say whether I think this infringes any question of taxes on food or makes it difficult for him and his friends to support this proposal, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give some kind of guidance and leading. This proposal is the approved proposal of the cabinet of the National Government, in which those of his party sit, and I do not for a moment doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and his Friends are agreed that this does not infringe any of the views which they held or commitments which they made at the General Election.
Mr. MANDER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the view of the Members of the cabinet is that these are not food taxes and do not infringe any pledge not to tax food?
Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I did not say that, but that the Members of the National Government, of the Cabinet of the National Government, are pledged to deal, with an open mind, with all the problems. We have a free hand, and while it may be true that this or that variation of idea may be in the minds of individuals, clearly the Government have a free hand, must have a free hand, and must examine these problems from every aspect, and cannot be tied by the old shibboleths either of excessive Free Trade, on the one hand, or excessive Protection on the other.
Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Liberal Members of the Cabinet are in favour of this proposal?
Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Gentleman really knows this House perfectly well. He knows it well enough to have

1043
the knowledge that I would not be here as a Member of the cabinet responsible to my colleagues putting forward proposals to which the cabinet had not given their consent.
Mr. MAXTON: I thought the Liberal Ministers might have dissented.
Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member, when he has had an opportunity of sitting in the cabinet, will understand the position well enough. I have been asked to say something on the vexed question of tomatoes. I recognise that the tomato is a part of the general diet of a great mass of our people. On the other hand, there are certain periods of the year when there is an overlapping of the tomatoes that come into this country with the home-produced tomatoes, and it is only reasonable that a crop such as the tomato, which can be expanded very considerably in this country, should have some measure of encouragement. I am ready to admit that hon. Members have a right to ask me on a problem of this kind the sort of views which I have with regard to it. It is not, however, my duty at this time—indeed, it would be improper—to divulge in any way how I propose in detail to deal with these problems. I am well aware that tomatoes are widely used in our industrial areas, and in dealing with this problem I shall have regard to such a circumstance; but I felt that in view of the fact that the tomato was in the same category as many of those vegetables, the cultivation of which we can properly encourage, I thought it proper to include it in this Schedule in order that we might with care and circumspection increase the production and by that means give a large amount of employment.
This proposal is one which, whatever the views may be as to minor details, the House can accept with confidence that it will not materially increase the cost of living to the great mass of our people. That it will deny to large restaurants and hotels the earliest products is true, and I do not see why that should not be done. That it may deprive some people of eating some of these articles out of season is true, but I think that the House should not shrink from taking this action. That
1044
it will stimulate production of some of the raw material for manufactures such as canned fruit and jam, I believe to be certain. That it will stimulate and give encouragement to many of our small producers, who in any agricultural policy deserve as much consideration as the larger farmers, is also true. It is for that reason, and because it is necessary to have this legislation now in order that we may do something to deal with some of these problems in the earlier months of next year, that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will be satisfied after the right hon. Gentleman's speech that, whatever his election pledges may have been, whatever may be the ideas of the right hon. Gentleman, he has satisfied himself and all Members who were listening to him that his definite intention and purpose with regard to the largest item in this catalogue of fruit and vegetables, namely, tomatoes, is to put a Protective tariff upon them. There seems to be no shadow of doubt about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. cocks) showed that competition had brought the imported tomatoes much nearer to the quality of the English tomatoes and that they were from a half to one-third the price of the home-grown commodity. The only possible way whereby the right hon. Gentleman can encourage an increased production of that vegetable at home will be by imposing a tariff at the maximum rate of 100 per cent. That clearly means depriving a vast number of people of the opportunity of enjoying this vegetable at all.
We know the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the purpose of the Government, and if Members who have hitherto called themselves Liberals do not vote with the Opposition on this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say when he goes back to his cabinet: "We have ensnared the Liberal party to such a point that they cannot turn back. They are now real supporters of the National Government. They have taken the first plunge into the realm of Protection, and there are no lengths now to which they are not prepared to go." To that extent, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his very calm, cool

1045
and collected method of ensnaring his political enemies. He has done very well indeed. For our part, we see the truth of the whole thing crystal clear. It is taxation upon food in a very small way. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is only a tiny little thing to which nobody ought to object; the pill ought to be swallowed even by Socialists. It may be a pill to-day, but it will be an elephant to-morrow. I hope I shall be here long enough to see those Liberals who have so far supported this Protectionist Government swallowing the elephant which will be the natural successor to the pill which the Minister is giving them to-day.
Mr. MAXTON: I want to make a few comments to the right hon. Gentleman who assists me in the representation of the city of Glasgow in this House. It is very interesting that he should have been chosen as Minister of Agriculture, for there are scarcely two yards of cultivable territory in the whole of his constituency. It is occupied by garden plots which are of the average size of a pocket handkerchief. I would not have levelled the same gibe at the Liberals as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has done. I do not think that it is the Liberal Members who are being "had"; it is the conservative Protectionist Members. We all know perfectly well that the Government did not want to do anything on this issue until after the long Christmas Recess was over. They wanted to think about it.
The right hon. Gentleman threw a gibe at me about never having been in the cabinet. I do not know that that is really a matter for shame. If I have never been in a Cabinet, I have had the opportunity of watching some six or seven in operation, and I always seem to see exactly the same process. A Government comes in, having made the maximum promises to the electorate, and then spends its period of office trying to see how they can get away with a minimum performance. If any Government has descended from the high levels of great promise to very low levels of performance, it is the present National Government, which came in with greater gusto than any other Government. Here is a Government that will not do anything until 1932, hoping that by the time
1046
they have reached 1932, they will find some good reason for doing nothing until 1933. Some of the newspapers supporting the National Government took them seriously, and started shouting for more, and the cabinet, disturbed out of its normal desire to do nothing, said "We must do something for these agricultural people." After a long meeting at which Liberal Members, ex-Labour Members and the conservative Members were present, they decided to throw the mob a carrot. When I was on the back benches when the Labour Government was in office, I did not get much out of them, but they never put me off with a carrot. It would have been, in my view, very insulting—a carrot of all vegetables! I want the conservative Members who sit behind the National Government to think of the humiliating position they are in just now and the position that, as far as I can judge, they are accepting. They will be going back to their constituencies at the week-end and saying, "Boys, we have got cabbages protected, turnips and early asparagus. We are saving agriculture—a bit at a time—a cabbage at a time."
I do not think that the gibe that the opposition should throw across is that the Liberal party are being "done in," because the Liberal party are getting a far bigger concession out of the present proposal of the Government than the conservatives who form the vast majority of their supporters. I, for one, am frankly sorry, because the conservative element in this country has steadily believed that it is only by adopting tariffs that you can save the country and bring great prosperity for the working classes. That is a belief that can only be disproved when demonstrated by facts of experience. My answer to the Government is "Get on. Give a 10o per cent. tariff. Pile it on, and do not wait until 1933 or 1934. Put it on now. Let us feel the full effect of it at once, and then we shall know exactly what the situation is." one or two hon. Members talked about welcoming this, because it would give the British farmer an opportunity of getting in first in the home market. One of my hon. Friends opposite, who has always been a sound agricultural Member since I have been in this House, was particularly strong on the British farmer getting the first

1047
of the market for his vegetables, but where is this home market 7 What home market is he talking about?
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) talked about ruiners eating tomatoes. It is this market that you are starting to prepare for production next year which your Government's policy is deliberately and definitely destroying. Last year you had the working man who could spend 17s. and you have deliberately reduced him to 15s. 3d. You are going to make your cotton operative unable to buy his tomatoes early or late. By the time you have the crops planted next year for this home market, there will not be any home market, because the people who are to buy these things are bound to be the British working class, and if they have no incomes, no matter how much turnips or carrots you produce, there will be no money to buy them. I hope in tackling one end of the problem in this miserable way the Government will not forget there is another end to the problem and that you must have not merely producers but consumers as well.
I am not very much interested in this Debate. My views on the Tariff-Free Trade issue, which is innate in this Amendment, were formulated many years ago when I read the views of Karl Marx on the subject. He was the only economist who had ever satisfied my craving for fundamental explanations, and he took the trouble to examine the merits of the Free Trade-Protectionist issue, and he came to the conclusion that, weighing them both up, he preferred Free Trade to tariffs because, on the whole, he expected it would lead to a speedier collapse of the capitalist system. I am sure if he had been alive to-day and had an opportunity of viewing the situation at the present time he would revise his views, and would prefer tariffs to Free Trade, because they would bring about the speedier collapse of the capitalist system.
While I am on the question of Karl Marx I would like to say this word of friendly warning to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. I noticed yesterday, when he was introducing this Measure, it was because he
1048
wanted to stop society hostesses from buying hot-house grapes. In nine years this is the first time I have ever seen him aroused to heights of passion, because he is usually very restrained even when dealing with very big subjects which might arouse opposition in other men. Yesterday he was really angry about the idea of the society hostess who, for the sake of achieving distinction among her fellow hostesses, would rush into the market to buy these luxury grapes, and so on. He was going to put that down with a firm hand. No monkeying of that description. I want to say this to him. He has got to remember that he is a Minister of a National Government supposed to represent all sections of the community, and he must not, in his utterances from that Box, allow class hatred to come in. Yesterday he was talking merely of the society hostess craving for distinction, but I would ask him, if she was getting distinction among her fellows by buying hothouse grapes at 15s., would she not achieve greater distinction still by buying them at 30s.?
Therefore, the putting on of the additional 100 per cent. tax might be of value to revenue, but it Could have no effect in rectifying the balance of trade, because the grapes would still come in, and the hostess would still have her social distinction. To-day he has come away from the society hostesses, and has admitted that these taxes, particularly those on vegetables, will add to the cost of the foodstuffs which ordinary people have got into the habit of using in their ordinary lives. Hon. Members, Liberal and conservative alike, before rejecting this Amendment ought to consider whether it is fair play on the part of the National Government again to hit the working-classes, who, in the few short weeks of their existence, they have already hit very hard in several different places. I urge those conservative Members who are out for big things in national policy not to assent to this miserable little Measure, which cannot achieve any of the big results they hope for their wider policy, but can certainly achieve the result of lowering the opportunities of happiness of a big proportion of the poorer section of the community.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 43.

Division No. 28.]

AYES.

9.37 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Elmley, Viscount

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Mabane, William

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Flanagan, W. H.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Atholl, Duchess of

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Balley, Eric Alfred George

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Gibson, Charles Granville

McEwen, J. H. F.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

McKeag, William

Barclay-Harvey, G. M.

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

McKie, John Hamilton

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Gledhill, Gilbert

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Glossop, C. W. H.

McLean, Major Alan

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McLean, Dr. w. H. (Tradeston)

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Gower, Sir Robert

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Granville, Edgar

Magnay, Thomas

Bernays, Robert

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Birchall Major Sir John Dearman

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)

Martin, Thomas B.

Borodale, Viscount.

Guiness, Thomas L. E. B.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Boulton, W. W.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Merrlman, Sir F. Boyd

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hales, Harold K.

Millar, James Duncan

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Mills, Sir Frederick

Braithwaite J. G. (Hillsborough)

Harbord, Arthur

Milne, Charles

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hartland, George A.

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Broadbent, Colonel John

Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Moreing, Adrian C.

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Morgan, Robert H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Burghley, Lord

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Butler, Richard Austen

Hills, major Rt. Hon. John waller

Moss, Captain H. J.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Munro, Patrick

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Hornby, Frank

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Horobin, Ian M.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Carver, Major William H.

Horsrugh, Florence

normand, Wilfrid Guild

Cassels, James Dale

Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nunn, William

Castle Stewart, Earl

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

O' Donovan, Dr. William James

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Ormiston, Thomas

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.

Chapman, sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Jamleson, Douglas

Palmer, Francis Noel

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Jennings, Roland

Peake, captain Osbert

Chotzner, Alfred James

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Pearson, William G.

Peat, Charles U.

Clarke, Frank

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Penny, Sir George

Clarry, Reginald George

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Percy, Lord Eustace

Clayton Dr. George C.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Petherick, M.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bllston)

Colville, Major David John

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Conant, R. J. E.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Potter, John

Cook, Thomas A.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Craven-Ellis, William

Knebworth, Viscount

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Pybus, Percy John

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ralkes, Hector victor Alpin

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Cross, R. H.

Leckie, J. A.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Crossley, A. C.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Lees-Jones, John

Ramsden, E.

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rea, Walter Russell

Dickie, John P.

Levy, Thomas

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Donner, P. W.

Liddall, Walter S.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Remer, John R.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Dunglass, Lord

Llewellin, Major John J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Ross, Ronald D.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Turton, Robert Hugh

Runge, Norah Cecil

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Soper, Richard

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tslde)

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Stevenson, James

Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Stones, James

Weymouth, Viscount

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Storey, Samuel

White, Henry Graham

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Stourton, John J.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Scone, Lord

Strauss, Edward A.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Selley, Harry R.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Wise, Alfred R.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Templeton, William P.

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Wragg, Herbert

Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Smiles, Lieut-Col. Sir Walter D.

Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

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

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Percy A.

Milner, Major James

Briant, Frank

Hicks, Ernest George

Owen, Major Goronwy

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

Hirst, George Henry

Price, Gabriel

Buchanan, George

Holdsworth, Herbert

Thorne, William James

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

John, William

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Cripps. Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycrost)

Leonard, William

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Logan, David Gilbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Grundy, Thomas W.

McEntee, Valentine L.

Groves.

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

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Motion made, and Question put "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 44.

Division No. 29.]

AYES.

[9.49 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Craven-Ellis, William

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Croom-Johnson. R. P.

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cross, R. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

Crossley, A. C.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cruddas, Lieut. Colonel Bernard

Aske, Sir William Robert

Burghley, Lord

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Atholl, Duchess of

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Butler, Richard Austen

Dickie, John P.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Butt, Sir Alfred

Donner, P. W.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Duckworth, George A. V.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Carver, Major William H.

Dunglass, Lord

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Cassels, James Dale

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Castle Stewart, Earl

Elmley, Viscount

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Chotzner, Alfred James

Flanagan, W. H.

Bernays, Robert

Clarke, Frank

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Clarry, Reginald George

Fraser, Captain Ian

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Clayton Dr. George C.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Coltox, Major William Philip

Ganzonl, Sir John

Borodale, Viscount.

Colville, Major David John

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Boulton, W. W.

Conant, R. J. E.

Gibson, Charles Granville

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Cook, Thomas A.

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Gledhill, Gilbert

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Glossop, C. W. H.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Gluckstein, Louis Halie

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McKeag, William

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Gower, Sir Robert

McKie, John Hamilton

Salmon, Major Isidore

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McLean, Major Alan

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Scone, Lord

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Magnay, Thomas

Selley, Harry R.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Hales, Harold K.

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Harbord, Arthur

Martin, Thomas B.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hartland, George A.

Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Millar, James Duncan

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Mills, Sir Fredrick

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Milne, Charles

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Molson, A. Harold Elsdale

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

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

Moore-Brabzon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

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

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Morgan, Robert H.

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Soper, Richard

Hornby, Frank

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Horobin, Ian M.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Munro, Patrick

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward.

Howltt, Dr. Allred B.

Nall, Sir Joseph

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stevenson, James

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stones, James

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

storey, Samuel

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

North, Captain Edward T.

stourton, John J.

Jamieson, Douglas

Nunn, William

Strauss, Edward A.

Jennings, Roland

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Ormiston, Thomas

Sutcliffe, Harold

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Palmer, francis Noel

Templeton, William P.

Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Thomas, Sir Fredrick Charles

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearson, William G

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peat, Charles U.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Penny, Sir George

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R

Peters, Dr. Sldney John

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Knebworth, viscount

Petherick, M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Knight, Holford

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Pickering, Ernest H

Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Potter, John

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Leckie, J. A.

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Lees-Jones, John

Pybus, Percy John

Wavland, Sir William A.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Weymouth, Viscount

Levy, Thomas

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

White, Henry Graham

Liddall, Walter S.

Ramsbotham, Herswatd

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Ramsden, E.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Llewellln, Major John J.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Wise, Alfred R.

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Remer, John R.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Wragg, Herbert

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Ropner, Colonel L.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Mabane, William

Ross, Ronald D.

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)

Jenkins, Sir William

Batey, Joseph

Edwards, Charles

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Briant, Frank

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kirkwood, David

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

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Buchanan, George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lawson, John James

Cape, Thomas

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

Leonard, William

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Logan, David Gilbert

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Harris, Percy A.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Daggar, George

Hicks, Ernest George

McEntee, Valentine L.

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Hirst, George Henry

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Holdsworth, Herbert

Maxton, James

1054

1055

Milner, Major James

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Price, Gabriel

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Rathbone, Eleanor

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Tinker, John Joseph

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Sir John Gilmour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Solicitor-General and Major Elliot.

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS BILL,
"to make provision for the imposition of duties of Customs on certain descriptions of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, flowers, bulbs, plants and foliage, and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to
1056
be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 13.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Ten o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT.
  ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT.
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  COASTAL TRADE.
  COASTAL TRADE.
  SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (DECOLOURISING CARBON).
  SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (DECOLOURISING CARBON).
  COMPANIES ACT (AMENDMENT).
  COMPANIES ACT (AMENDMENT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  CURRENCY.
  CURRENCY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITS.
  RECRUITS.
  HORSES (PURCHASE).
  HORSES (PURCHASE).
  POST OFFICE SERVICES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  POST OFFICE SERVICES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
HOUSING.
  DEMOLITION.
  DEMOLITION.
  RECONDITIONING, SCOTLAND.
  RECONDITIONING, SCOTLAND.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY (COLOURED SEAMEN).
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY (COLOURED SEAMEN).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REVENGE."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REVENGE."
  STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
  STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  COAL MINES ACT, 1930.
  COAL MINES ACT, 1930.
  HYDROGENATION
  HYDROGENATION
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bill:
Expiring Laws.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister's speech at the Round Table Conference is to be the subject of debate in another place on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us if some Resolution will be placed before your Lordships' House on the same subject?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of saying to your Lordships that I understand that the Prime Minister's statement to the Round Table Conference, this morning, included a statement that it was proposed to ask Parliament to endorse the principles on which it proceeds, and that there is to be a Resolution moved in another place, to-morrow, endorsing that statement. It does seem to me that it would be very unfortunate if this House did not have a similar opportunity of discussing that subject to that afforded in another place. To-morrow is too short notice, but I propose, if your Lordships agree, that a Resolution endorsing the statement should be put, down for discussion on Thursday, the day after to-morrow.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Bill, which I
230
think may fairly be described as a short and non-contentious Bill, merely prolongs the life of the Commission which has been examining these endowments for the last three years, and it proposes to extend its powers for another three years. The Act of 1928 empowered the Commission to review educational endowments, giving it compulsory power to that end, except in regard to endowments given after 1920, and University, theological and Carnegie Trust endowments. Briefly, that Act enables the Commissioners to prepare draft schemes for altering the original purposes of the endowments and for applying the funds to
"such educational purposes, mental or physical, moral or social, as the Commissioners think fit, having regard to the public-interest and to existing conditions, social and educational."
Further, these, schemes may also provide for grouping, amalgamating, combining or dividing such endowments, and for altering the constitution of the governing bodies. In short, it is a process of rationalisation, which is in keeping with the Education Act of 1918 wherein, in Scotland, 947 school boards were reduced in number to 35 education authorities.
The Commission reports annually to Parliament, and, for those of your Lordships who are interested, those Reports are available in the form of White Papers. The Commission has worked zealously for the last three years under the chairmanship of Lord Elgin. It now appears that a great deal of work is still to be done, and this is why this extension is sought. In this connection I may remind your Lordships that the previous Commission, that of 1882, was appointed for five years but found it necessary to sit for seven years, and it did very valuable work. There appear to be over 1,430 separate endowments of which the Commission has information. So far the Commissioners have reviewed endowments in 16 out of the 35 education areas of Scotland. They have held preliminary inquiries into 412 endowments, and have prepared about 50 draft schemes. Perhaps I should add that the guiding recommendations for the Commissioners were supplied by a Departmental Committee, which examined the question in its general bearings, and set up what they considered to be the principles according to which the work of revision of endowments should proceed.

231
That Departmental Committee was under the chairmanship of Lord Mackenzie, with others well acquainted with conditions in Scotland. The Bill passed all its stages in another place without any comment beyond a kindly and sympathetic blessing from the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
". Without prejudice to maintenance of the other provisions of the Treaty of sixth December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the Parliament of the Irish Free State to alter or repeal Section two of the said Treaty or the provisions contained in the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, as to the right of any person to petition His Majesty for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland to His Majesty in Council or the right of His Majesty to grant such leave."
The noble Lord said: The object of the clause which I move is to preserve the right of appeal from the Irish Free State Courts to the Privy Council, which is an integral part of the Treaty between this country and the Irish Free State made on December 6, 1921. The issue raised by my clause is largely a different one from that which was raised by Colonel Gretton's Amendment in another place, an Amendment which was rejected. Colonel Gretton's Amendment proposed to safeguard specifically by words all the terms of the Irish Treaty, and when you
232
see why that Amendment was rejected I think your Lordships will see some reason why my Amendment should be accepted. Colonel Gretton's Amendment, as I say, was to preserve all the provisions of the Treaty and to prevent them from being altered under the Statute of Westminster Bill when it becomes law. There is no question that in arriving at the decision to reject that Amendment the House of Commons was largely influenced by two facts. The first was a letter from Mr. Cosgrave to the Prime Minister, dated November 21, which was read out by the Dominions Secretary, in which Mr. Cosgrave said:
"The Treaty is an agreement which can only be altered by consent."
A very proper and a very just declaration, and, if it were applied to all the Treaty, I should not be here to ask your Lordships' leave to move my Amendment.
The second thing that I think materially influenced the House of Commons was Mr. Baldwin's declaration that he was advised by the Law Officers that the binding character of the Treaty would not be altered by one jot or tittle by the passing of this Bill. In those circumstances the majority of the House of Commons naturally assumed, and I think very justly assumed under the conditions, that Mr. Cosgrave's letter and Mr. Baldwin's statement applied to every term of the Treaty, including that very important term, the right of appeal to the Privy Council from decisions of the Irish Courts. And may I say in passing that that right of appeal is regarded to this day by many persons—minorities and others in Ireland—as of vital importance for the purpose of protecting their rights in case those rights should be at any time invaded? I reminded your Lordships on the Second Reading of this Bill that in practically every case where an appeal to the Privy Council came from the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland the appeal was successful. In other words, had it not been for the existence of this appeal injustice would have been done.
There was the notorious case of Wigg and Cochrane, which was a case of ex-British civil servants who appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that the compensation given to them by the Irish Courts under Article 10 of the Treaty was insufficient, and the Privy

233
Council decided that these ex-British civil servants were entitled to £150,000 more in compensation than had been awarded by the Irish Court. The result of that appeal was that these men got £150,000 additional compensation. If the appeal to the Privy Council had not existed they would not have got one farthing of that sum. I merely mention that to show that in quite recent times—I think the appeal of Wigg and Cochrane was only two or three years ago—that right of appeal has not only been exercised but exercised in such a way as to prevent what undoubtedly would have been injustice otherwise.
I told your Lordships what was said in another place—namely, that Mr. Cosgrave proposed to abide by the Treaty, which, he said, could not be altered except by consent. Somewhat to the surprise of many of us, we were told by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on the last occasion when this question was before your Lordships, on the Second Heading on Thursday last, that Mr. Cosgrave holds the view that this right of appeal to the Privy Council is not part of the Treaty at all, and that he intends on the first opportunity when this Bill is passed into law to abolish that right entirely. The noble Viscount will forgive me, but he told us that Mr. Oosgrave alleges now that the right of appeal was not in the Treaty. It is notorious, and has appeared in The Times and other newspapers two days ego, that they are already preparing a Bill in Dublin to abolish this right of appeal in the Treaty as soon as ever the Bill is passed. There can be no question about that, and if the noble Viscount did not say so I expect he is one of the very few people who are not aware of the fact; but it is a fact.
May I make this comment? If it be a fact, as it is, that Mr. Cosgrave asserts now that this right of appeal is not part of the Treaty, was it not very unfortunate that he did not mention that fact in his letter to the Prime Minister? Instead of asserting or putting that into his letter, he told us in fact that he was going to abide by every term of the Treaty Unfortunately, he did not mention that he did not agree that this very important right of appeal was not part of the Treaty. I have taken the trouble to look into some of his previous utter-
234
ances to see why he objects, or objected, to this right of appeal. I find that as recently as May last at a public gathering the reasons which he gave for objecting to this right of appeal were these. He said:
"These appeals are an anomaly and an anachronism. Their continuance is incompatible with our status"—
I ask your Lordships to pay especial attention to this reason that he gives—
"and is an insult to our dignity."
So that according to his statement in May last he did not object to the right of appeal on the ground that it was not in the Treaty. He objected to it mainly because it was an insult to their dignity.
His Foreign Secretary, I think he is called, Mr. McGilligan, speaking a little later in the year, gave another reason for objecting to the Treaty. I almost hesitate to read this because it is in terms which might be somewhat offensive to your Lordships. But one has to know what is being said in Ireland and it is no use shutting one's eyes to the fact. Mr. McGilligan said:
"The British Monarch or King was finished entirely so far as the Free State was concerned."
May I say a word or two as to the right of appeal being part of the Treaty? Every legal authority before whom that Treaty has come in this country has said without hesitation that Article 2 of the Treaty contains implicitly this right of appeal to the Privy Council. That view has been asserted by no one more strongly than His Majesty's present advisers, and by the noble Viscount, who wanted the other night temporarily to divest himself of his great legal authority, which I entirely refused to grant him because I cannot forget that, notwithstanding that he is the Secretary of State for War, he is an authority to whom we all look.
Not only has the view that the right of appeal is contained in this Treaty been, laid down by His Majesty's Government, but it has been laid down by every legal authority in this country, including such an authority as Mr. J. H. Morgan, who is recognised as a great constitutional lawyer. I do not think that one single legal authority in this country could be produced to say the opposite. Yet Mr. Cosgrave tells us, with what authority

235
we know not, that he does not think that this right of appeal is in the Treaty. I ask, would it be right for your Lordships' House and for Parliament to allow what we believe on the highest legal authority would be a violation of the Treaty to be done because some unknown legal authority in Ireland says he does not think it is in the Treaty? I think it would be a grave dereliction of duty if we assented to anything of the sort.
There is another and somewhat different view of the point to which I would ask your Lordships' attention. Let us assume for a moment that this right of appeal is not in the Treaty, and let us consider how the matter stands apart from the Treaty. I say that even if this right of appeal had not been put into the Treaty, the Irish Free State Government would not be entitled, unless they are empowered to do it by this Statute of Westminster Bill, to destroy that right of appeal. The reason I say that is that in the Irish Free State Constitution Act, an Act which was passed in identical terms both in the Imperial Parliament and in the Parliament of the Free State in the year 1922, laying down the Constitution of the Free State, there is an Article which contains an express provision that the right of appeal should exist. The words of Article 66 are these:
"Provided that nothing in this Constitution shall impair the right of any person to petition His Majesty for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court to His Majesty in Council or the right of His Majesty to grant such leave."
Therefore, this right of appeal was expressly reserved, putting the Treaty on one side for a moment, in the Constitution, and unless this Bill gives the Irish Free State power to alter this Imperial Statute, then the Irish Free State have no power to alter that part of their Constitution. But I fear there is little doubt that if this Bill were passed unamended, without the Amendment which I ask your Lordships to introduce in it to-day, they could repeal this part of the Imperial Statute and could abolish this right of appeal which was enshrined in that Statute. Therefore, from that point of view also, I think my Amendment is essential.
There is only one other aspect of this question I want to call your Lordships' attention to, and it is rather important.
236
It is the question of the Prerogative of the Crown, and whether the Irish Free State is entitled to do an act by its own legislation which would involve an infringement of the Prerogative of the Crown. It arises in this way. I am now quoting from an authority I will mention in a moment, which your Lordships will all recognise as paramount:
"In every self-governing Colony the Crown has a right if it chooses to exercise it, to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. You cannot take away this Prerogative without express words."
Those are the words used by Sir Douglas Hogg, Attorney-General of the day, in the House of Commons in moving the Second Reading of the Free State Constitution Bill, and I need hardly say that utterance of his, like all his utterances, was entirely accurate and in accordance with the law. I need hardly say that everyone in this House accepts that authority. What follows from it? It follows that, even apart from the Treaty altogether, the Free State could not abolish this right of appeal to the Privy Council without infringing on the Prerogative of the Crown, and, therefore, when I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment, I am asking you to do so for the reasons I have already given, and for the further reason that I think your Lordships would be justified in saying to the Free State Government: "You are not entitled to infringe on the Prerogative of the Crown, and to abolish that Prerogative which allows His Majesty's subjects in proper cases to appeal to the Privy Council."
My last word is this. What is the objection to this Amendment? We shall hear it in due course. Mr. Baldwin said in another place that if an Amendment of this character were put into the Bill the other Dominions would resent it. Why should the other Dominions resent it? I cannot conceive any reason—and I have racked my very poor brain to find a reason but I am unable to imagine one—unless they put some extravagant construction on the celebrated Balfour Declaration. What they would have to say would be this. They would say that Declaration meant this, "that a Bill is to be brought forward in the Imperial Parliament which will be sent to each of the Dominions for consideration, and each of the Dominions will be entitled

237
to put in such reservations as they may think lit or proper to protect themselves, but when the Bill comes to this Imperial Parliament you, representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and as trustees"—let us not forget that—"for minorities in Ireland, are prohibited from inserting one line to preserve those Treaties in matters which were considered when they were made absolutely essential both for your own interests and in the interests of minorities in Ireland."
I think that would be an absolutely extravagant—I had almost said outrageous, but your Lordships do not like strong language—an almost outrageous perversion of the intention of Mr. Balfour's Declaration. How could it be justified to tell us "the Dominions can do what they like to protect themselves if they had this Bill"—four or five have put in provisions protecting their interests in the manner which they think proper—"but you, the Imperial Parliament, must not put in one single line to protect either your own interests or the interests of minorities in Ireland. More than that, even though the rights which were conceded to you and to minorities in Ireland were granted by Treaty you must not touch the Bill and you must not do anything to the Treaty." I urge upon your Lordships strongly that you would be justified—may I say you would be almost more than justified, you would be bound?—to protect the rights of this country and to protect, the rights of Ireland in view of the declared intention by Mr. Cosgrave to do what we believe to be a violation of the Treaty. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, page 3, line 27, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I cannot help saying that I think it is a little unfortunate, after the debate which took place in this House on Thursday last, that this Amendment should have been moved. No one of course doubts the sincerity and earnestness of conviction which actuated my noble friend in bringing the matter forward. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I doubt very much whether he is really rendering a great service to those whose cause he desires to champion in Southern Ireland
238
by moving his Amendment. My noble friend, before he dealt with the main point in dispute in this Amendment, referred to one or two quotations which I would like to mention in order to brush them aside. He quoted three persons—President Cosgrave, Mr. McGilligan and myself. He quoted President Cosgrave as having given a number of reasons in May last why he disliked the maintenance of the right to petition His Majesty for special leave to appeal, and he said that the President had not mentioned in his letter as one of the reasons the contention that the right was not in the Treaty. Of course the President did not mention that as one of the reasons why he objected to the continuance of the right. President Cosgrave has all along said that he intended and promised to observe the provisions of the Treaty, and, therefore, to say that he objected to this particular provision because it was not in the Treaty would have been a ridiculous statement. What he no doubt meant is that, although he desires to observe the provisions of the Treaty intact, that does not preclude him from attacking this particular matter because it is not included in the Treaty provisions. I have said already, and it is not necessary to repeat, that I do not personally agree with that view, but at any rate it would obviously be a wholly illogical thing for the President to have said the reason he objected to the Privy Council appeal was that it was not in the Treaty.
Then my noble and learned friend quoted an observation of Mr. McGilligan to the effect, I think, that the British Monarch or King was finished in the Irish Free State. I have not got the quotation, but I am informed—and my noble friend will be able to verify it—that, if he looks at the context in which that observation was made, he will find, not that Mr. McGilligan is repudiating the Sovereignty of His Majesty, but that he is emphasising that, since the arrangements embodied in the Balfour Declaration, His Majesty is King of the Irish Free State just as he is King of Great Britain and that the Irishman's allegiance is due to His Majesty as King of the Irish Free State and not as King of England. That is a concession to Irish sentiment which I confess does not shock me at all.

239
Next my noble and learned friend quoted an observation, which I made in 1922, in which I pointed out that the Prerogative of the Crown to grant special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council is a right which could not be taken away without express language. My noble friend is good enough to say that he accepted my authority, but I should like to assure your Lordships at once that the proposition does not rest on the statement I made in another place, but is, in fact, embodied in a decision to that precise effect by the Privy Council itself in the case of Rex versus Nadan, an appeal from Canada. There is no doubt at all that, without express language, the Prerogative right to grant special leave to appeal cannot be taken away. But that is not what we are discussing today. My noble friend seems to me to miss altogether the point of the objection which is taken to any such provision as that which he desires to see inserted, not only by the Irish Free State but by the other Dominions of the Crown. The objection of the other Dominions is just as emphatic as the objection of the Irish Free State, although the reason for it may be a little different in the two cases. The objection which the Dominions feel to this clause or anything like it being inserted is that it is a derogation from, and contradiction of, the constitutional position which we as long ago as 1926 asserted to be the constitutional position of the Dominions in what is now known as the Balfour Declaration, a Declaration which, your Lordships will remember, rests not merely on the authority of that great statesman but was accepted and embodied in the unanimous Report of the Imperial Conference of that year and, therefore, represents the considered and united opinion of all the self-governing Dominions and of the Mother Country.
May I remind your Lordships, because the point is of some importance and is the whole point in this discussion, of what the Balfour Declaration said. I am quoting from the Report of the Imperial Conference:
"They [the Dominions] are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a
240
common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
That defines the status of the Dominions and of the Mother Country and their relations one to another. What the Dominions say is this: "If it be true, as you have said in 1926 and as we accepted in that year, that the Irish Free State is an autonomous community, in no way subordinate to the United Kingdom in any aspect of its domestic or external affairs, and if it be true, as you allege, that you are passing this Statute of Westminster Bill in order to give legal recognition to that doctrine, it is a contradiction in terms to insert into that Statute a limitation of the legal right of the Irish Free State to deal with its domestic affairs in any way which it sees fit, and it is none the less a derogation from that right because it happens that the Irish Free State have contracted with you that they will not exercise their rights in a particular way."
The Dominions say that you have no right to say to the Irish Free State: "Although we are agreed that you are an autonomous community, in no way subordinate to the United Kingdom, when we come to put that into an Act of Parliament, we are going to say, as a pledge of your subordination to us, that we will not allow you that freedom except as we think you are entitled to use it. "That is the objection of the Dominions and it does not rest upon their agreeing with the Irish Free State or with us as to whether this particular right is in the Treaty or not. If it is in the Treaty, the Irish Free State cannot depart from it without a breach of their Treaty obligations: if it is not, they can. Whether they can or whether they cannot, this Parliament has no constitutional right, according to the Balfour Declaration, to impose upon their recognition of the absolute autonomy in external and domestic affairs of the Irish Free State a limitation or qualification that we will only grant it to the extent to which we think they are entitled to use it. That is the argument and to me it seems an unanswerable argument. So far from it being, as my noble friend said, an unreasonable extension of the Balfour Declaration, it seems to me only to state in other language what the Balfour Declaration lays down.

241
I have said already, and can only repeat, that in my view the right to petition His Majesty by special leave to appeal is preserved by the Treaty. I have said already that in any view, if the Irish Free State hold an opposite opinion, they ought to submit the matter to some impartial tribunal to decide which is right. I have said already, and I do not shrink from repeating, that I think they were very wrong in doing what they have consistently done, passing Acts reversing every decision of the Privy Council given in an Irish appeal. I said that it was wrong. I should not attempt to justify their legislating unilaterally to abolish that right without our sanction or without having obtained from an impartial tribunal a decision that their view was right. Because I take that view as to what is right, that does not justify me, nor would it justify your Lordships, in saying to the Irish Free State or to the other Dominions vitally concerned in this question: "When we said in the Falfour Declaration that we recognised your absolute autonomy, when we renounced all right to subordinate you to this Parliament in domestic affairs, we meant at the same time to reserve to our-selves the right to insert in the Statute which recognises that right a limitation?which is inconsistent with its existence." That is the whole issue in this Amendment. It is because that Amendment is inconsistent with the constitutional position of the Dominions, and not in the least because I differ from my noble and learned friend as to his construction of the Treaty rights, that I beg your Lordships not to accept an Amendment which, in my judgment at any rate, would do a great deal to spoil the relations between this country and the Irish Free State, which would revive suspicions in the other Dominions which I hope and believe were finally allayed in 1926, and which could be of no practical benefit to anybody in the wide world.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I had not intended to intervene this afternoon. I listened with very great respect to the speeches of my noble friends, particularly the speech of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I do not know whether I ought to call him my noble and gallant friend from the office he occupies at the moment, but I prefer to think of him as a learned and not as
242
a gallant member of this House. Naturally one takes his views as correct and he has shown that he does agree with the moral aspect of this question put before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Danesfort. But I want to appeal to my noble friend as to whether it is desirable in the present circumstances, and in view of the fact that this Bill has passed the Lower House by a very large majority and in face of what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has said in regard to the effect which it might have, and probably would have, upon all the Dominions who are parties thereto. I would ask my noble friend whether, having made his statement, with which I think all your Lordships will agree or at any rate a very large proportion of your Lordships will agree, having made out both legally and actually a good case for the Amendment—an Amendment which I say frankly I should be only too glad to vote for if it were not for the circumstances—he could see his way, in consideration of the Imperial interests, not to press to a Division an Amendment with which I am sure so many of your Lordships really sympathise.
LORD DANESFORT: We have heard an interesting speech from the noble and learned Viscount. So tar as I followed him he did not impugn one single jot or tittle—that I am told is the proper legal phrase used by Law Officers—of my argument. He admitted it all. He admitted that what Mr. Cosgrave is going to do is a violation of the Treaty. He admitted that Mr. Cosgrave is wrong in suggesting that it is not a violation of the Treaty. He admitted—at any rate, he did not controvert it—that apart from the Treaty it would be a violation of the Constitution to abolish this right of appeal, and he did not dispute my point that it would be an infringement of the Royal Prerogative if the Free State attempted by legislation to abolish this right of appeal. But then, in language which of course I accept coming from him, though if it had come from any one outside this House with less authority I should have had great difficulty in accepting it, he told us that if the Balfour Declaration is to be followed it is a contradiction in terms to insert a restriction on the legal power of the Irish Free

243
State or any other Dominion even though—I think I am quoting the substance of what he said although I have not got his exact words—that involved a breach of a Treaty or an Agreement. If that be really an accurate statement I confess that to me it is an absolutely astounding position. The subjects of His Majesty's Dominions all over the world are entitled to protect themselves, but we in this country are forbidden to do it by the words of the Balfour Declaration.
If your Lordships accept that it is not for me to press my Amendment to a Division, but I do hope that before this intention of Mr. Cosgrave's is carried out he, too, by representations made from His Majesty's Government in this country, may be induced to pause long before he does what undoubtedly will be looked upon by the minority in Southern Ireland as a gross breach of faith with them, and what would be looked upon by any people in this country who desire to maintain Treaty rights as being unworthy of a Dominion to whom free government had been granted by this country. In the circumstances I accept the advice of my noble friend Viscount Brentford and do not ask your Lordships to divide upon this Amendment, but I say honestly I do it with the utmost regret.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I would not have intervened in this debate, but I cannot allow some of the words of my noble friend to pass without comment. My noble friend spoke as if he were the spokesman of the minority in Southern Ireland.
LORD DANESFORT: I am of a good many of them.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I am very doubtful whether he knows the mind of a good many of them.
LORD DANESFORT: May I say that I have been asked by a great many of the minority in Southern Ireland to put forward their views in this matter, persons who are of importance and whose views I respect?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I think that is a little indefinite, but really my purpose is to see that your Lordships should not be misled. I doubt whether there is any strongly considered opinion among loyalists in Southern Ireland in regard to this particular point. I am not
244
an apologist for the Treaty. Views of the Treaty were expressed on behalf of the minority in Southern Ireland by myself and my colleagues to the then Prime Minister within a few hours of the Treaty. I am not going back upon that question at all. It may be that promises to the minority in Southern Ireland had been forgotten altogether in framing the Treaty and that mischief undoubtedly resulted, but I am not going to touch on that or the legal aspect of the case or detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two. Whatever the legal aspects of the case, I am forced to say that in my opinion, and I know in the opinion of many of the minority in Southern Ireland, whatever his previous views and convictions were, the conduct of Mr. Cosgrave as leader of the Irish Free State has been in other respects than those which I cannot deal with on legal points, consistently one of loyalty to the Treaty, of regard for the minority and of statesmanship in dealing with extremely difficult problems.
SEVERAL NORLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: That tribute from your Lordships, that cheer, is well bestowed on this occasion. I will say one thing more. I believe that no greater unwisdom has been shown than by those extremists who have followed the example of O'Connell for a great many years in the last century, who instead of endeavouring to make the very best of the circumstances in which Ireland finds herself have gone back again on old political problems. Nothing can stimulate that habit of view in the Irish mind so much as the belief—which is an entire delusion—that this country is solely occupied with trying to find out how it may again reassert authority in Southern Ireland. I do not believe that there is any attempt of that kind in any direction, but nothing is so much calculated to reaffirm that view in the Irish mind as any attempt to reassert power which we shall not be able to exercise.
I would put this question to my noble friend. Suppose he carried his Amendment, can be give effect to it? We all know he cannot. We all know that we are not going by force of arms to reaffirm the right of appeal to the Privy Council. In the circumstances I can only say that I think the Government have taken upon the whole a wise course, faced

245
as they were with the necessity—which I regret—of putting into statutory form the hitherto unwritten Constitution of tie British Empire. I regret it, but I believe that in taking the course your Lordships propose to take we are avoiding one more blunder of a long series of blunders on the part both of Ireland and of this country, which have been in the past the cause of so much misunderstanding and a renewal of which at this moment may prejudice the best interests of both countries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Short title and commencement.
12.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
(2) This Act -shall come into operation on the first day of December, nineteen hundred a id thirty-one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY) moved to leave out subsection (2) The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is in the nature of a drafting one. The Bill provided, by Clause 12, subsection (2), that this Act shall come into operation on the first day of December, 1931. To-day is the first day of December, and of course the Act cannot come into force to-day. The Amendment proposes to leave out that subsection, and the effect will be that the Act comes into operation when the Royal Assent is given.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 11 and 12, leave out subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATE MENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROLONGATION OF INSUR ANCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES ELECTRICITY DISTRICT (AMEND MENT) ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a Report from the Ministry of Transport upon the Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EAST LEICESTERSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
GOSPORT AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
WALTON-ON-THAMES AND WEY BRIDGE GAS ORDER, 1931.
MANSFIELD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
BERKHAMPSTEAD GAS ORDER, 1931.
GLOUCESTER GAS ORDER, 1931.
RHYL GAS ORDER, 1931.
SKEGNESS GAS ORDER, 1931.
WANTAGE GAS ORDER, 1931.
NEWQUAY (CORNWALL) GAS ORDER, 1931.
ALDERSHOT DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1931.
BLACKPOOL ELECTRICITY (EX TENSION) ORDER, 1931.
CREDITON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
HORNSEY GAS ORDER, 1931.
EGREMONT AND CLEATOR MOOR ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
NORTH WANSBECK ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.

OSWESTRY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
CANNOCK AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a Report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GLOUCESTER GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and that they have considered a modification proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend its adoption to the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LUTON GAS ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House, and that they have considered an addition proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend its adoption to the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.