Mr. DENNISSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state to whom sixteen licences for the import of foreign hops have recently been issued; whether he is aware that such licences are valuable; and will he say upon what terms they were issued?
§ Mr. PRETYMANAs I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leominster on the 31st October, it is contrary to precedent to give the names of indivi- 453W duals or firms to whom licences have been issued. The circumstances in which licences for hops are being granted were fully described in the answer to a question by the hon. Member for Maidstone, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 16th August, to which I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade what proof he requires, in the case of imported hops purporting to be consigned from British Dominions or Colonies, that the true country of origin is not a foreign state, and, in the case of all imported hops purporting to have been paid for before the Prohibition Order of the 1st June, that such payment has bonò fide been made?
Mr. RUNCIMANCareful inquiries are always made by the Department of Import Restrictions into all the circumstances, including country of origin and date of payment, before licences are issued. The quantities for which licences for Colonial hops have been given are so restricted that there is no inducement to Colonial exporters to import foreign hops for the purpose of their re-exportation to this country.
§ Mr. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether home-grown pockets of hops are compelled to be marked with the name of the grower, the parish and county where grown, and the date of the year, whereas foreign imported hops are sold without any corresponding marks of identification; and if he will say what precautions have been taken since the date of the Order prohibiting hop imports to ensure that no hops grown in the United States are carried over the frontier into British territory and shipped to England as Colonial produce?
Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The latter part of the question is covered by the answer to the preceding question.
§ Mr. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a company has been formed called the British Columbian Hop Company; if so, will he say what is the authorised and issued capital of the company; whether any, and what, proportion of the share capital is held by aliens; whether licences to import 454W foreign hops have been applied for by the company or by any other person for the purpose of dealing with the company; and, if so, whether any such licences have been granted?
§ Mr. PRETYMANNo company of the name of the British Columbian Hop Company has been registered at Somerset House. With regard to the last part of the question, I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Leominster on the 31S October by the President of the Board of Trade, of which I am sending him a copy.
§ Mr. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what, is the total quantity of foreign hops imported under licence, and without licence, respectively, since the prohibition Order of the 1st June, giving in each case the country of origin, the names of the consignors, consignees, and merchants or dealers through whom the imports were consigned?
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe following table brings up to date the information given as to total imports in the answer to the hon. Member for Ashford, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th August, and as to licensed imports in the answer to the hon. Member for Dartford, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th October:
Total Imports: Cwts. From U.S.A … … 4,826 From Russia … … 12 From Belgium … … 283 From France … … 2 Quantities licensed: Packages. From Russia … … 95 From Belgium … … 353