asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the floods in that part of the Don Valley which falls within the area of the Doncaster Drainage Committee, any proposal for temporary or permanent remedial works haev been submitted to his Department for approval; and, if not, will he make representation to the committee and insist upon the powers conferred by the Drainage Act of 1929 being carried out?

No scheme of works has been submitted by the Doncaster District Board, but the board have prepared a scheme for the improvement of a portion of the lower part of the River Don and have obtained tenders. They feel some hesitation, however, in embarking on this work for the present owing to its cost, even allowing for possible assistance by means of a Government grant. As my hon. Friend is aware, whilst the Don-caster Board is charged with the general supervision of the district, provision is made in the 1929 Act for setting up further district boards. The Doncaster Board is proceeding with the work of surveying such new districts and framing schemes for their constitution and, until this preliminary work is more advanced, the board may feel that it needs a little more time to establish its position. I recognise, however, the urgency of the case and am communicating with the board on the subject.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the reply, may I remind him that a very large area of the Don Valley is in a very serious position at this moment? Unless the Doncaster Drainage Committee are going to do more than survey, I am very much afraid that the Drainage Act of 1929 will be useless in the area.

I will bear those facts in mind.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I desire to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who is, I believe, on his way to Geneva to represent His Majesty's Government at the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Bill is to authorise the Treasury, subject to certain conditions, to guarantee the principal and and interest of a loan of £750,000 to be raised by the Government of Mauritius for the repair of the damage caused by the hurricane there on 5–8th March of this year. The circumstances which have necessitated the loan and the Imperial guarantee, including the details of the hurricane and its effects, also the financial position of the Mauritius Government, have already been fully set out in a White Paper and in the opening speech of the Under-Secretary of State on the Financial Resolution on Friday last, in his reply to the Debate on that occasion, and on the Report of the Financial Resolution on Tuesday last.

My hon. Friend dealt very fully with the history of Mauritius, with its culture, its loyalty, its geography, and its pride in being a part of the British Empire. He went very fully into the effects of the severe hurricane in March last and the damage that has been done to property, buildings and to the people who were rendered homeless, to the roads, the bridges, and the sugar crop. Knowing as I do how the House resents repetition, I do not intend to repeat what he said on those matters, but I think it is necessary that I should repeat what is the intention of the Bill, as was explained in the Financial Resolution. The effect of the guarantee, so far as this country is concerned, is that if, at any time during the currency of the loan, which will not exceed 40 years, the Government of Mauritius is unable to meet the interest on it, or if at the end of the term it is unable to repay the principal, the necessary payments will have to be made from the United Kingdom Exchequer, that is, by the British taxpayer. They will, as provided in the Bill, be repayable by the Mauritius Government. It is not, however, expected that Exchequer payments will be necessary, at any rate, after the first few years.

A Mauritius loan was guaranteed in very similar circumstances by the Imperial Government in 1892 and His Majesty's Government has never been called upon to implement its guarantee. It is possible, however, that charges will fall upon the Exchequer during the first few years, as it is probable that the Government of Mauritius will have an excess of expenditure over revenue in those years and will not be able to meet the loan charges from its own resources. Provision is, therefore, made for advances for this purpose during the first five years out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. The interest charges which may have to be met in this way will be between £30,000 and £35,000 per annum, depending upon the actual terms of issue of the loan. It is at present contemplated that sinking fund contributions may be suspended during the first five years. In connection with the sinking fund it should be explained that, although Clause 1 (2, b) of the Bill provides for the establishment of more than one sinking fund, that is only done to provide for the possibility of the loan being issued in several instalments and of sinking funds of various periods being necessary, but it is not contemplated that more than one sinking fund will be necessary.

The only point raised in the previous Debates which does not appear to have been adequately answered was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) on the Report stage, relating to public health in Mauritius. He quoted a passage from the Annual Report of the Colony for 1929, referring to the existence of undernourishment, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary promised that the matter should be dealt with on the Second Reading of the Bill. The position is that Mauritius is over-populated. The density of the population is 550 to the square mile. The bulk of the population live normally on the very limit of bare subsistence and it is inevitable that in times of depression, such as now exist, some of them, who become unemployed or receive a diminished return from their small holdings, should be forced below that limit. The only real remedies for this state of affairs are an increase in the productivity of the island or a decrease in its population. Sugar is understood to be the most productive crop available. That is, the sugar industry can support the largest number of persons to the square mile. There is therefore no practicable alternative to the sugar industry. Measures for increasing its productivity are under consideration by the Agricultural Department of the Colony and the agricultural advisers of the Secretary of State. Active steps are also being taker to develop such auxiliary industries as are possible, such as tobacco, tea and pineapples.

On the strictly public health side there is little that can be done to remedy undernourishment. The record of the Government of Mauritius in public health matters is, I understand, a good one. They have in recent years spent very large sums on public health works, such as anti-malarial work and the improvement of their water supply, and there is no doubt that such measures will continue to be prosecuted, so far as funds are available.

If the measure of assistance now proposed had not been given to the Colony the economic position would very rapidly have become far worse. Under-nourishment would not only have become more widespread, but might have developed into actual starvation. The assistance now proposed is, therefore, one way in which His Majesty's Government can assist in remedying this deplorable state of affairs. His Majesty's Government felt that it was the duty of the mother country to come to the aid of Mauritius in its present difficulties, and they have every hope that this measure of assistance will succeed in placing Mauritius once more in a sound position. Knowing as we do that the sugar industry is efficiently managed but is suffering from world depression, as we all are, we are confident that it will overcome its difficulties if the ill-effects of this disaster can be mitigated. That is what the Bill proposed to do. The matter has been fully discussed on two previous occasions. The Bill is to deal with the effects of a catastrophe which took place during this year, and is on the lines of well-established practice, the latest precedent being the Palestine and East Africa Loan Act of 1926. I hope I have said sufficient to enable me to move the Second Beading of the Bill.

Knowing the deep interest which the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions takes in all matters connected with the Empire, I feel sure that he experiences great pleasure in moving the Second Reading of a Bill which is going to help considerably the small island of Mauritius. My regret is that help of a far more reaching character has not been considered by the Government. Here we have an island, beautiful and romantic, about the size of Surrey with a population of 400,000 people, mostly of French origin, an island which acts as a link between our possessions and the French possessions in that part of the world. The remarkable thing is that in the Island of Mauritius, quite apart from the effect of the hurricane the great sugar industry is in a languishing condition whilst the neighbouring French possessions are becoming prosperous. In years gone by the contrary was the ease, and I would ask the Government to look into that matter carefully and see whether they cannot devise measures which will remedy this state of things. In passing may I say that I feel sure the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will greatly regret that he is not present to-day to complete the good work began a week ago. He too has a wide knowledge of local affairs in Mauritius, and great sympathy with the development of the Colony.

The sugar industry, which occupies about 90 per cent. of the energies of the Colony, is in a languishing condition, not merely because of the hurricane but because of world conditions. That industry is of great importance to our shipping, to employment in our shipping industry and in our docks, and, therefore, of vital importance to this country. My object in rising is to put to the Government the necessity of taking steps not merely in the nature of this assistance, which is very welcome no doubt, but also to take steps of a fundamental and far-reaching character. If I were to go in detail into the remedy I would recommend, I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, would call me to order, and I will content myself by saying that it can be summed up in the words, protection for our trade.

Hon. Members, I hope, will realise that this is a loan to Mauritius to repair the damages of the hurricane, and I hope they will confine themselves to the object of the Measure.

When the Financial Resolution was before the House last week, hon. Members on this side expressed the view that they would welcome the introduction of this Bill. The plain fact is that Mauritius cannot carry on any longer without the assistance which is made possible by this Bill. On that occasion I took the opportunity of drawing attention to the tragic and deplorable conditions prevailing in the Island of Mauritius and also in the other sugar colonies which is daily causing us the greatest concern and of expressing the regret that the subject-matter of the Bill should be specifically confined to repairing the damage caused by the terrible catastrophe which befell the island in March last. The opportunity was taken of showing that there were alternate methods of dealing with the situation by a much wider measure which would grapple with the general economic position of the island. It is unquestionable that Mauritius must have immediate assistance. The people of Mauritius are not ungrateful, on the contrary, they will appreciate to the full such relief as the Bill may bring. In Mauritius we have a great amount of British capital. Millions of pounds have been invested in plantations and in machinery, and we are allowing that capital to depreciate to a dangerous extent. As the Under-Secretary for the Dominions has pointed out—it was also pointed out by Sir Francis Watts in his report on the condition of the island—the efficiency and methods of sugar plantation in Mauritius are deserving of the greatest praise, but in order to produce sugar efficiently you must not only get the most sugar out of the cane but you must also get most cane out of the ground.

I cannot allow a general discussion on the sugar industry of Mauritius. Hon. Members must confine themselves to the loan as set out in the Schedule to be given to repair the damages caused by the hurricane.

May I ask whether it would be in order to refer to the possibility of other means by which the Colony could be assisted and this loan avoided altogether?

That is entering upon a question of policy which cannot be discussed now. We are dealing now with the question of the damage done by the hurricane.

May I put it to you that we are justified in discussing why it is necessary to grant a loan at all to this colony, and in that connection we are justified in discussing the reasons why the colony cannot repair that damage from its own resources.

Is it not true that it can be shown that this loan will be scarcely sufficient in view of the economic position of the island. In other words, might we not argue that the loan that is proposed is inadequate owing to the accumulative effect of other causes on the economic position of the Island?

That, obviously, is going beyond the purpose of this Bill. We must confine ourselves to the loan and to the reasons for the loan.

Further to that point of Order. You referred just now to the Schedule, and said that you hoped we would keep within it. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule says:

"The making of loans to planters or other persons to defray their expenditure in repairing or rebuilding property or in cultivating their land——

I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend—(HON. MEMBERS: "Read on")—

"being expenditure necessitated by damage caused by the said hurricane."

If the sugar cane, as has been suggested, has been demolished by the hurricane, which is quite likely, it is for the planters to consider whether they should replace it with sugar or with some other product. The whole question is what should be planted, sugar or some other thing.

I do not agree that that is in the Bill. We must confine ourselves to the objects stated in the Bill.

I have no desire whatever to go beyond the limits of discussion. I was developing a point which, if I had been permitted to develop it a little further, would not have made it necessary for you to intervene. I was pointing out what is necessary in order to produce sugar efficiently, and was proceeding to show that if the people of Mauritius were to get the best out of the soil, they require capital. While the planters in Mauritius produce sugar at a loss, as they are doing to-day, they cannot find the necessary capital and the resources of the island have been so depleted, largely as a result of the relief which was given locally last year, that they are unequal to the task of providing the necessary capital.

In authorising the guaranteeing of this loan, I think we are justified in taking into account the fact that Mauritius is a very valuable material asset to this country. The value of that asset was brought home to us in 1920, when Wall Street tried to make a corner in the sugar market and to hold us up to ransom. Wall Street was selling sugar at £120, but Mauritius came to our aid and sold for £90 and so broke up the ring that was threatened. Nor must we forget that during the War, when the Mother Country was in peril, the people of Mauritius gave freely, not only of their treasure, but of their blood to this country, and now that the position is reversed, and Mauritius is in difficulty, it behoves us to give such assistance as we can to Mauritius. We are responsible for the welfare of this colony. It is governed from Downing Street and legislated for by this House, where the representatives of Mauritius have no right of audience. We should look upon Mauritius as upon the other British colonies, as part of our national whole. Depressed industries in dependent colonies should receive from this House the same assistance as we should give depressed industries in this country. We cannot deal with Mauritius without dealing with its national industry. The welfare of Mauritius and sugar are synonymous. As I said the other day, the people of Mauritius have to import all their foodstuffs and to pay for them by their exports; yet 98 per cent. of their exports consists of sugar.

I deprecate the suggestion that we should regard the question of the welfare of this island or the question of this loan as a party matter. It would not be fair to the Mauritians. We should not aim at making the residents in our colonies good Conservatives or good Socialists, but only good Britishers. We must have regard to the fact that we are a much older country than Mauritius. For upwards of 1,400 years we, in this country, have been developing our resources. We have a great diversity of industries and a great accumulation of capital in this country. But Mauritius is a new country, 200 years old, and it has been under the British flag for only 120 years. Owing to climatic and other conditions, its people are dependent on one industry; they have all their eggs in one basket. They have had neither the time nor the means of accumulating the capital that is necessary to tide them over such a depressed period as the present.

Mauritius is a good customer of ours, and if she is to continue to be a good customer, we will have to make it possible for her to sell her main product, which is sugar, and in order that she may be able to do that, it is necessary that we should furnish Mauritius with the capital which is necessary to produce the sugar. In common with other hon. Members on these benches, I congratulate the Government on the expedition with which they have brought forward this Bill. We hope that it will very soon reach the Statute Book. I would appeal to the Government and express the hope that in the near future they will introduce a much larger Measure which will grapple with the very serious condition which prevails, not only in Mauritius, but throughout our sugar colonies—a condition which is causing us the greatest possible anxiety and alarm.

I wish also to congratulate the Government on guaranteeing this loan, but I have my views as to whether, generous though the loan seems, it is going to be at all adequate for the position of affairs existing in Mauritius. While we congratulate ourselves and the Government upon this assistance, let us not forget that in 1917 and 1919 Mauritius granted to this country a loan, on both occasions, of over 8,000,000 rupees, which was much more than half a total year's revenue of the island. A record is still extant of the thanks of this country to Mauritius at that time. Let us not forget, therefore, that we have still a debt owing to Mauritius. The damage that has been done by this hurri- cane will affect three well marked types of persons or things. It has affected first of all public property—roads and bridges and so on. It has affected also a relative few of the well-to-do. In the nature of things it has affected most of all the poorest class, who live in the most unsubstantial types of houses. I want the House to realise that in the nature of things it must be the third class that suffered most; those who lived in the worst type of houses are to-day suffering the most.

While you, Sir, have ruled that it would be out of order to discuss the general economic position, or the economic causes which are at the root of the Colony's difficulties, yet I think I may say that the report from which I quoted the other night shows a condition of affairs with regard to the mass of the population there which no Member of this House can look upon with any satisfaction. The medical officer says explicitly that, not only has the death rate largely increased, but that, as far as he can see, it is going to increase still further as the years go on, owing solely or almost solely to under-nourishment. That, in effect, means starvation and it indicates a very serious state of affairs. That was the position of the country before the hurricane struck it at all. It was in that weakened and debilitated condition when the hurricane came upon it.

I do not think that all the information has been placed before the House which we might reasonably have expected on certain matters. At present for instance there necessarily arises the question of the administration of the fund which has been organised to ameliorate the conditions of the poor and distressed who have suffered from the effects of the hurricane. Then, in 1929 there was a commission of inquiry into the methods of Poor Law relief in the island, but I can find no notice of the recommendations of that commission and no information as to how Poor Law relief is at present being administered. I think that matter is germane to the discussion of the Bill because of the necessity of ensuring that every pound sanctioned by this House shall be spent to the best advantage in relation to those whose need is greatest.

The Minister admitted last Friday that this loan is considerably below the total loss suffered by the population of the island and that is another reason why I emphasise the fact that although this loan seems generous to us, and although it will be most acceptable to the people of Mauritius in their dire need, yet it will not meet the necessities of the case. With regard to the Minister's reply this morning to my comments of a few nights ago, on the causes of the Colony's difficulties, I am inclined to smile at the suggestion as to over-population being a main cause. Although the density of the population seems very high, I have yet to be convinced that that is the sole cause of the difficulties in which the Colony finds itself. As to increasing production, I would only make this comment as an illustration of the circumstances in which the people of Mauritius find themselves. While our primary industries here are languishing, we are being asked to develop new industries—having apparently solved all the difficulties of our primary industries—and the Minister suggests that Mauritius should do the same. The truth is that one of their difficulties is that they already produce too much there. That, indeed, is one of the main causes of the sugar difficulty.

There are some points upon which I should like the Minister to give us further information. First, what is being done in connection with this loan for the large number of people who were rendered homeless by the hurricane? Are they being provided with new types of houses, or are they merely being given some form of relief and allowed to wander about, or are they being sheltered for the time being in public institutions with the intention that accommodation will be provided for them later on in new houses? Secondly, as a considerable amount of this money is, naturally, being given for public works such as roads and bridges, I wish to ask if assistance is to be given primarily to those human beings who are most in need of it at the present moment, and can we be assured that no undue amount of the money will be taken for, or no undue precedence given to public works?

This loan is to be given on certain conditions, and I congratulate the Government on having inserted, as we would of course expect them to do, a fair wages clause with regard to any work done there. A second condition is that a commission is to be set up to inquire into the finances of the island. As hon. Members may know, during the past four years there has been a loss of approximately 2,000,000 rupees on the annual revenue. I would like to know whether the members of that commission have yet been appointed and whether it will be a departmental commission or a commission consisting of Members of this House. Finally, may I say that we are placed at a great disadvantage in discussing the present position in the island when the latest information available to us is a report dated 1929. I think the circumstances in Mauritius to-day are such that we should have some special information upon them. No Member can say that he knows the position in the island to-day adequately or accurately, even after the three discussions which we have had upon this subject, and Mauritius is in such a parlous condition that I think we might have a special report from the Colony on what is happening there now. Such a report might help to allay the anxiety which is naturally aroused by the report to which I have already referred.

At all events, our position is plain and simple. We must do everything we can to help the people of this Crown Colony. We, here, are personally responsible for whatever is happening there. If an undue number of deaths is occurring in the island, apart altogether from this hurricane and its effects, those deaths can be laid to the charge of individual Members of the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that the matter will be closely examined and that we shall have more intimate and recent information about the condition of affairs in the island than has been available so far.

If I might make one or two general observations without disturbing the harmony of this Debate, I would recall to the House the circumstances, described to us by the Under-Secretary the other night, which have led to the introduction of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that the island had been visited by a severe hurricane; that the result had been the almost total loss of its export trade, and that there was the prospect of a substantial deficit in its Budget. Those words sounded very familiar. I seem to have heard exactly the same things said about this island by the spokesmen of the Government, but though the Liberal party have suggested a great re-development loan as the remedy for our troubles, the Government have not seen fit to adopt that plan in this country. But they are doing in Mauritius—which appropriately was discovered by the Portuguese—exactly what the Liberal party would like to have done here.

In connection with this loan, there are two conditions to which I would call attention. One of the conditions which the Under-Secretary of State laid down was the assent of the Colonial Government to a financial commission appointed by the Government here to advise on measures to produce a balanced budget at the earliest possible date. Will not the people of Mauritius suggest that it might be better for us to remove the beam out of our own eye, and that it is rather a work of supererogation for us to send a committee to balance other people's budgets when the Budget of this country is completely unbalanced itself?

Is this Mauritius or malicious?

The other condition to which I would call attention is this, that there should be a Fair Wages Clause put in, which is in accordance with the Resolution adopted by this House some years back. I want to ask whether that is a pure formality or whether it will be something rather onerous for Mauritius. I suppose he knows whether they are as willing and eager to impose it themselves as we are to accept it. If so, how is it that when we are making a loan to one of our own Colonies, one of our own friends, we make that a condition, whereas when we make loans and guarantee credit to other countries, which for the purposes of good order shall be nameless, we do nothing of the kind, and, in fact, welcome the importation of their produce, although we know very well that it has been produced under bad conditions?

The Russians have a seven-hours day.

I did not say to what country I was referring. But is it not rather strange that we find it wise, in one case to impose this con- dition whereas in another case we allow exactly the contrary to happen, and that, much to our national detriment? Here we have the three conditions precedent to the granting of the loan, the hurricane, complete destruction of the export trade, and an unbalanced budget, conditions which, as I say, apply to this country. In the case of Mauritius the Government propose, and the House is prepared apparently to accept, the policy of granting a loan, but was it not possible for the Government, in view of this catastrophe, to have suggested an alternative line of policy? Why should they not have suggested for Mauritius the kind of things which they have suggested for us? We too have suffered from hurricane, loss of our export trade, and an unbalanced Budget. It would have been cheaper, though I do not know if it would be any more effective in the island of Mauritius than in the island of Great Britain, to have introduced some system of electoral reform, to have said that the 10 elected members of their Legislature were not to be elected as they are now. If that is a remedy for unemployment, hurricane, and the loss of export trade here, perhaps it would be there too. It would have been cheaper, perhaps, to have suggested to that country that they should embark on the valuation of all their land with a view to its taxation. It might have been cheaper, and there would have have been no risk of any guarantee being required from us, if they had inquired what was the position of education there, whether the school leaving age had been raised, whether any singers or musicians would like to be subsidised. Are there any beaches there to dot with orange tents in which to disport themselves, as we have found, as a remedy for unemployment?

How is it that the Government, in the case of Mauritius, have run away and adopted the Liberal policy of development loans, while here they have adopted, in similar circumstances, a most extraordinary farrago of remedies which have had no effect? I think the Liberal party ought to be here in full force to congratulate the Government on the fact that they have adopted some of their suggestions, and I shall be glad to hear why the Government have distinguished between the two different islands, one, Mauritius, the size of Surrey and the other, Great Britain, much larger. As a matter of fact, the real answer is the same in both cases, because the real answer is to be found in dealing with hurricanes, deficits on the Budget, and the loss of export trade by protecting the home market and giving Imperial preference in a system of Imperial economic unity, which is exactly what Mauritius would like to have.

I should like to express my satisfaction that we shall be able to help Mauritius in the way in which we are going to do, although I should like to have seen it done in some other way. The Under-Secretary of State just now told us that Mauritius depends upon the sugar industry. That is something which we all knew. He also told us something which I am going to challenge, and that is that the sugar industry is quite efficient. I am not going to say that it is not, hut I think it is important that we should know whether that sugar industry, as a result of the hurricane, is as efficient as it might be. I happen to have been Mauritius' greatest competitor some years ago in the sugar line, and in those days the cost of production of Mauritius sugar was very high. Only a few days ago I had a discussion with a planter from Mauritius and suggested to him that one of the first things they should do would be to try to get their cost of sugar production considerably reduced.

Owing to the hurricane and to the fact that probably many sugar factories have been damaged, and some possibly demolished, it is questionable whether it is advisable to re-build those factories or whether it might not be better, as the Under-Secretary of State has himself suggested, to try alternative crops. I cannot imagine why they should not be able to produce tobacco, tea, and pineapples, products mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, because the climate there cannot be very different from the climate in which I lived for 21 years, and where we found that these by-products were extraordinarily useful, and the more so because when one has a hurricane such as they had there—and we have had them in the island in which I lived for so many years—the soil is entirely altered. You very often have floods, rivers overflow, and considerable damage is done, and what was formerly land which could profitably he used for planting sugar has been entirely changed.

It is for that reason that I rise, because I believe that we should try to induce the Government of Mauritius to appoint a Committee—the present Government are very fond of doing that, so that they could well suggest the same idea to their friends in Mauritius—which should go into the whole question of what products are really going to be most beneficial. We all know that in these days research is very important, and I would suggest that the Government, in their advices to the Mauritius Government, suggest to them that they should go, in more detail, into research, to see whether as a result of the hurricane it would not be more profitable to plant other crops rather than sugar, more especially as in these days there is over-production of sugar throughout the world.

Is it not a fact that they are suffering, among other things, from the sugar-beet subsidy in this country? It seems strange that the House of Commons should be giving a subsidy to the product of Mauritius and at the same time to the industry here.

I think the hon. Member will appreciate that the amount of sugar produced in this country is a bagatelle compared with that of other countries.

But the paying of subsidies is not a bagatelle.

At the same time, we are giving money in this country for the employment of British labour. We cannot, however, continue the discussion across the Floor of the House. I suggest-that it might be advisable, at this juncture, instead of rebuilding the sugar factories, instead of restarting the sugar fields, to see if the money could not be better expended on new products.

I want to ask a question with regard to Sub-section (6) of Clause 1 regarding the conditions of labour. I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Colleague the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) that this is a Fair Wages Clause. I want to know what is meant by the words

"The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed."

What is the comparison going to be, and with what? If it were left to em- ployers or anyone who is connected with employers in this country to decide, they would suggest that wages are too high no matter how low they happen to be at the present time. I want to know whether or not there is some standard by which we can judge as to fair conditions of labour, and which will enable us to be satisfied that the conditions are of a satisfactory nature.

There is one point I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman, because it is probably well that it should be raised at this stage, and that is the point which I was able to raise very shortly when the Money Resolution was before the House. Under the conditions laid down in the Bill, the Government are prepared only to guarantee this money if they are satisfied—putting it shortly—that only during the first five years the Government of Mauritius may not be able to meet the obligations. I will put it in other words. The Government take power to give that guarantee even if they are not satisfied that during the first five years the Government of Mauritius will be able to meet the annual charges in respect of the loan. Does that mean that the Government are going to give the guarantee only if they are satisfied that in the sixth and subsequent years the Government of Mauritius are likely to be able to do that? If so, it is really misleading the House to bring a Bill forward in this form. The Government, I suggest, know that it is extremely unlikely in the sixth year, or even in subsequent years, that the Government of Mauritius will be able to meet this charge. They know perfectly well that unless there is a complete change in world economic conditions regarding sugar, or, alternatively, that there is a change in the fiscal policy of the Empire, it is most unlikely that the Government of Mauritius will be able to meet this charge.

12 n.

I suggest that the wording of the Clause in this respect misleads the House, because if the Government give this guarantee, they are giving the country an assurance that they believe that the possible inability of the Government of Mauritius to meet the charges will extend only to five years. If, on the other hand, they really believe that it is likely to extend longer, then, under this Bill, they have no right to give the guarantee at all, in which case the whole matter is washed out, and is of no value to anyone. That is not the right way to deal with the matter. It would have been very much better if the Government had adopted the procedure which has been carried out in other cases, and give an extended guarantee without these reservations, at any rate for the interest and, possibly, also for the principal of this comparatively small sum of money, considering the tremendous damage that has to be put right. If they had done that, it would have been better for the colony, better for the investors, and a great deal more honest to the House of Commons.

I join in what has been said on both sides of the House with regard to this Fair Wages Clause. I do not join in the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the conditions of the Fair Wages Clause in this country, but, leaving that aside, I believe that there is a great deal of truth in what he says to the effect that this Clause may be of great value. But, in the case of Mauritius, a Clause of this kind, under which the Secretary of State has to be satisfied regarding the application of the Fair Wages Clause, is really a matter which should not have appeared in this Bill at all. The Government of Mauritius are quite capable of judging these matters for themselves, and I am certain the Secretary of State is not able to do so.

I was asking for a stronger Clause.

I was not referring to the hon. Gentlemen's views regarding the Clause, but only to some statement he made regarding its application in this country. I do not wish to detain the House over that matter, which is a small one. On the larger question, I would ask the Government to reconsider their whole position. This is putting them in the position, really, of misleading the House, unless they are perfectly certain in their own minds that, under existing fiscal conditions, there is no fear of the Government of Mauritius not being able to meet their full obligations in the sixth year.

This Bill has been received with a chorus of mild applause in all parts of the House, tempered by the mild sarcasm of my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I confess that, while I admit the necessity, in present circumstances, of this loan and this Bill, I cannot regard this proposal as one on which the House is entitled to congratulate itself or to congratulate the Government either, if it is viewed from the point of view of broad, Imperial policy. You, Mr. Speaker, have indicated clearly that this Debate must not be turned into a discussion of fiscal policy, of bulk purchases, of research and development, and so on, which, clearly, would be out of Order. But let us for one moment consider why this Bill has been introduced. There is a Colonial Development Act on the Statute Book under which the Government can give assistance to Colonies without coming afresh to the House. It is true that the financial conditions laid down in the Colonial Development Act would not fully cover the loan proposed.

That is one reason, and a minor reason, why the Government comes to the House with this proposal, but there is at least one other reason, and I will point this out to the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). That Act describes the objects for which any such loan is to be raised or any such grant to be given, and it confines those objects to what I may call constructive purposes and development. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough that the Government are even following the dictates of the Liberal part in this matter, because the loan which they are proposing is to be expended for no such purposes. It is not to be expended, as under the Colonial Development Act, for the improvement of internal transport, or for reclamation and drainage, or for scientific research and instruction and experiment in the science, method, and practice of agriculture and industry, or for the promotion of public health. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Walsall. If this proposal had been for the promotion of public health, in which he takes such an interest, as we all should, the Government would not have brought in a Bill of this kind at all.

The circumstances surrounding this matter are more unique than that. In the first place, this is an ad hoc loan for a particular purpose, that is, an act of God. The second point is that during the last four years at least there has been such chaos in the finance of the island, that it has been necessary to get outside the Colonial Development Act in order to meet the special conditions.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for making the rest of my speech for me. It is hardly a good answer when I am detailing the reasons why a special Bill is necessary, to interrupt me when I have given two, and to say that there are many more reasons. I was coming to the third reason. Let me emphasise the second reason. This Bill is necessary because the purposes for which this loan is to be raised are non-constructive purposes. It is pure relief and for the repair of damage, and is in no sense industrial, agricultural, or colonial development at all. The third reason is this. Whereas under normal circumstances the Colonial Development Act assumes that the colonies can finance themselves for other purposes, in this case the island of Mauritius has been so debilitated that it cannot meet the expenses due to the hurricane.

Let me survey all the circumstances. We are reminded of the story of the Irish jury who found, when a man fell down a chalk cliff, that it was an act of God under highly suspicious circumstances. The truth is that the main reason why we have to consider this proposal is that the revenue of the island of Mauritius in the last few years has fallen by more than five times the amount required for the service of this loan. That is roughly a correct statement, and that is the real reason why we are discussing this matter at all. What alarms me, and what should alarm the House, not with any party feeling at all, is that it is yet another instance of a habit into which we are getting of dealing with the symptoms and not with the causes of disease.

There is no party advantage to be gained in this matter. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies reminded us, when we were considering the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, that there was an application to the previous Government towards the end of their term for an increased preference, which the Government were not prepared to grant. That is perfectly true, but we are not considering this question from the point of view of party advantage. We should be discussing it from this point of view: that for some time the Government of this country, irrespective of its political complexion, has conducted policy in such matters very largely on the basis that Mauritius, like ourselves, and we, like Mauritius, were suffering from temporary depression, that the clouds would roll by, and that drastic measures were not necessary. What has happened in this country and all over the world is that all parties have realised, in theory at any rate, that it is not true that we are dealing with a passing blizzard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—with an economic blizzard in the words of the Prime Minister—[An HON. MEMBER: "Churchill."] He said it long before the Prime Minister, but the trouble is that the Prime Minister is still saying it to-day, although his supporters cheer me when I say the opposite. We have to deal with the situation which has to be met by passing constructive remedies, and our charge against the Government is that from the beginning they have refused to consider, or shown themselves unable to consider, any constructive remedy at all. I agree with the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie)—

The Noble Lord must not go into the merits of these proposals.

You will perhaps just allow me to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Springburn that it is absurd that we should consider matters of policy in separate watertight compartments in that way. I really had not intended to go into the merits of any of these proposals. How should one sum up a Bill of this kind? Will hon. Members cast their minds back to the sort of thing they said three years ago, when the Lord Mayor's Fund was raised? This is precisely the same kind of thing, though it happens three years afterwards, when surely we ought to have learned something. Steadily year by year we are dealing with our difficulties by putting another class of the population or another territory or another area on the dole, and now we have this Bill, which is a Measure to put our Colonial Empire on the dole.

I can only speak again with the permission of the House. There is really very little for me to reply to. I admire the way that some hon. Members have endeavoured to broaden the discussion. The Noble Lord has done his best to widen it, but, as the Bill is circumscribed in its operation, I feel gratified that it will have no opposition. Most of the speeches have been complimentary. There has been an expression of opinion that the loan is not adequate, and that we should have granted a larger sum. It is, however, the amount which was asked for by the Government of Mauritius. I should not give way to any Member in my desire to help any part of the Empire or our people at home in any matter where it was absolutely necessary, but, if a man asks me for £1, there is no reason why I should give him £2, and I justify the Bill because we are meeting the demands generously. The Government were most anxious to help Mauritius to meet the effects of the disaster that befell the island some time ago.

One or two questions were put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), who said he did not think the loan was as large as it ought to be, and also that we had not as full information as we might have had. Unfortunately, we have not received the report from Mauritius for 1930. It is due, and if we had received it we might have had more up-to-date information as to the position of Mauritius. In reply to his question, I can say that the distress has been met locally by a relief fund, to which His Majesty's Government contributed £5,000, and that much is being done in construction and rebuilding houses in the colony, and more will be possible when this Bill becomes law. The personnel dealing with the loan will be approved by the Treasury, but I cannot at the moment say who they will be. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) tried to be funny, but, I think, missed the mark. He raised the question of the Colonial Development Act and what was laid down there as to conditions of labour; but his great point was that we are dealing with a hurricane in this country. The Government are dealing with that hurricane in this country as no Government has ever done, and I am a supporter of the policy of the Government in dealing with that hurricane by maintaining the people who are suffering from the effects of it. That is one reason why I support a Bill like this to help the sufferers from the hurricane in Mauritius.

The only other question put to me concerns Sub-section (6) of Clause 1 which says that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed in all works carried out under the loan. The language is not quite so strong as that which appears in the Colonial Development Act, which laid down the conditions of labour which are to obtain in any part of the Empire where loans were guaranteed under that Act, but we have not got 100 per cent. trade unionism in every country in this Empire, and in some of them, I am afraid, we have not got much trade unionism at all, nor many trade union leaders. I wish it were otherwise, because I am a believer in 100 per cent. trade unionism in all industries in all countries. The position, as I understand it, is that the Secretary of State has to satisfy himself that the works are undertaken after enquiry of the Government to see that the conditions of employment, which will be partly governed by the labour laws of the colony, and the wages paid, are fair in the local circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do they check them?"] I am not in a position now to say how they check them. It may be possible to answer that later, and to say which are the organisations to see that the conditions are carried out. That is a matter that might be considered in regard to Mauritius at some future time. In conclusion, I would say that I am grateful to the House for the reception given to this Bill.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer one definite question which I put to him? I will put it again in a sentence. It is whether his reading of this Bill is that if His Majesty's Government are not satisfied that after five years the Government of Mauritius will be able to meet the obligations they cannot guarantee the loan. I want the loan guaranteed without that.

I am very sorry that I did not reply to that point. If the hon. Member had heard what I said in my opening speech, he would have noticed that I made it clear that the proposal is not quite as he indicated in that speech, and that it will be possible for the Government to go beyond the five years, but it is not anticipated that it will be necessary to do so.

The Committee will remember that some weeks ago an arrangement was entered into by me, on behalf of the Government, as to the price to be paid to growers of sugar-beet in the season 1931–32. Under the ordinary procedure the beet grown this summer will be dealt with in the factories in October or thereabouts, finishing early in the new year. The matter before us concerns the prices to be paid in respect of the sugar extracted from the beet picked in the forthcoming season. Up to the present time and for the past three years the subsidy paid on sugar extracted from home-grown beet was 13s. per cwt., but the beet-sugar subsidy dropped this year to 6s. 6d., or half the usual sum, and remains at that figure for the remaining three years of the continuance of the Act.

It so happens that this great drop in the subsidy has coincided with an unprecedented low price of sugar. The average price before the War was round about 11s. per cwt., but for some time past it has been about 6s. 6d. or even lower than that. The coincidence of the low price of sugar placed the factories in this critical position, that between the low price of sugar and the drop in the subsidy manufacturers were suffering to the extent of 12s. or 13s. per cwt. The price that will be paid to the growers of beet is determined by the amount of sugar extracted, and the price obtained for it. Last year the growers obtained various prices more or less round about 458. or up to 50s. The arrangement is that the farmers contract to receive so much per ton for beet delivered to the factories, and the price varies according to the amount of sugar extracted from the beet. The extraction varies from 15½ to 17½ per cent., so that the price to the growers is based upon a 15½ per cent. scale, or about 2s. 6d. per ton for each one per cent.; that would be 2s. 6d. more for 16½ per cent. and an additional 2s. 6d. for every one per cent.

It was felt that if we continued this arrangement as far as we could it would be advisable, because beet-sugar provides a good deal of employment, and in the present depressed condition of agriculture it so happens that in the eastern counties, in the beet-growing areas, beet-growing has been the standby of the farmers. But for the beet crop last year those farmers would have been very much worse off. I hesitate to say what the condition of unemployment would have been but for this industry.

There were 300,000 acres of beet under cultivation last year and with all these uncertainties prevailing no contracts were being entered into. From the point of view of the maintenance of the industry, the Government felt it necessary to do their best to secure a better arrangement instead of leaving it to negotiations between the parties concerned. The Government entered into negotiations with the industry, and very difficult they proved to be. The result was that it was finally arranged that, on certain conditions, certain allowances should be made for this year in addition to the reduced subsidy. The subsidy dropped this year from 13s. to 6s. 6d., and in order to mitigate that great drop these proposals are submitted to the House.

The arrangement which the Government has entered into provides that the factories are to make no profit, and nothing is to be allowed for reserves or depreciation, until the figure has been paid to the grower which I shall describe in a moment. The accounts of the factories, while of course they will be confidential to ourselves, and will be examined by our accountants, will be fully revealed to the officers of the Ministry. Therefore, it is within our power to see that the arrangement is faithfully carried out. I quite realise that the arrangement which we have made, and which I will describe, may be criticised, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will criticise it. Nevertheless, it is my business to make the best of a difficult situation. The Act dealing with subsidies was passed some years ago, and we suddenly found ourselves in the position of having to face an unprecedented price of sugar. I am trying to save the situation. That is my only justification for these proposals.

The arrangement entered into is this. We offer an additional 1s. 3d. per cwt. for sugar extracted under certain conditions over and above the 6s. 6d. per cwt. This is subject to the condition as to no profit and no reserves, and we have fixed the price of sugar so far as we could on a basis in regard to which there can be no manipulation against us. The arrangement is rather technical, but it is a price fixed for a certain percentage of raw sugar in certain degrees of polarisation which can be obtained. The present price is 6s. 6d. per cwt., and, with the addition of 1s. 3d., the maximum figure allowed will be 7s. 9d. If sugar remains at 6s. 6d., the whole of the 1s. 3d. will be payable. For every 1d. that sugar rises above 6s. 6d., 1d. comes off the 1s. 3d., and so on, 50 that if, when the time arrives, the price of sugar is above that figure, the factories will not receive, pro tanto, the full amount arranged for. If sugar remains where it is, the factories will receive an additional 1s. 3d. It was felt, however, that we must arrange that the farmers could be sure that their offers would be accepted, so that it was a part of the undertaking that the factories must accept the acreage offered. Then, in order to ensure that there should be a fixed arrangement, a certain tonnage of beet was taken as applying to each group of factories, representing roughly about 1,000,000 tons; it is taken as 300,000 cwts. of sugar per factory, and we do not pay beyond that figure for each factory. It was further arranged that if, during the remainder of the subsidy period, the price of sugar rises, we secure repayment of this additional 1s. 3d. which has been advanced.

The repayment scheme is as follows. If, after this year, the price of sugar is more than 7s. 9d., plus an allowance for depreciation and reserves which have not been allowed for this year, then repayment begins 1d. by 1d. until the 1s. 3d. advanced is all returned. The additional allowance which has been made for the remaining two years of the subsidy period is 9 per cent. of the written-down value of the factory at the 31st March. The reason for taking that figure is this: Some factories, as the Committee will be aware, have been much more prosperous than others, and have been doing very well indeed under the subsidy paid by the British taxpayer; and this arrangement provides that, where a factory has made these profits, provided that the cost has been written down, it will by that amount receive a smaller premium. That is to say, a factory which has not-had the opportunity to write down its costs will receive more than one which has made greater profits and has written down its costs. That is why the basis is the written-down price on the 31st March, and that governs the -future repayment in the event of the price of sugar rising during the last two years of the period above 7s. 9d. It may well be that we shall get all the 1s. 3d. back: that remains to be seen, according to the price of sugar; but I may say that it is estimated that the total additional cost, supposing that the whole of the 1s. 3d. is paid, will be about £225,000.

For how many years?

That is for this year only. Of course, if the price of sugar rises, that sum will be repaid, as I have already explained. If we advance the whole of the 1s. 3d. and never get any of it back, the total amount would be £225,000.

If the price does not rise, shall we be asked to repeat this next year?

I am afraid I cannot answer officially as to next year; I am dealing with the present disastrous emergency. The right hon. Gentleman is in as good a position to answer that question as I am. I come now to a rather disappointing feature of this arrangement. There are 17 factories, and I had hoped that they would—and, indeed, it looked at one time as though they would—all participate in the arrangement; but a certain group of factories, and one other, decided to stand out. That is the Anglo-Dutch group of factories, which operates, in the main, in East Anglia, and I am sorry to say that that sis the district where it was of the greatest possible importance that, if possible, this arrangement should have applied. Those factories, too, are the ones which, generally speaking, have done the best; they have, in fact, made enormous profits; and I told them, with all the frankness with which I am speaking now, and, indeed, with even greater frankness, that in my opinion this group of factories, seeing how well they had done, might have been well able to incur the same risks which the other factories have undertaken. They refused to do it, and I have no power to interfere in the matter. Anyhow, the result of this arrangement is, as regards the factories that have accepted—12 out of the 17—that they have now entered into an arrangement with the growers under which the growers will get 36s. per ton for beet grown which has a 15½ per cent. extraction of sugar, rising by half-a-crown for each 1 per cent., so that, if the beet grower produces beet with 17½ per cent. of sugar, he will get 43s. a ton.

May I ask why the Memorandum states that the factories have made contracts with the beet growers on the basis of 37s. 6d.?

I thank the noble Lord. I sat up late last night to read these papers over, in view of to-day, and I recognised that that was a mistake; it should be 38s.

The White Paper says that, the number of factories that have accepted is 12 out of 18.

There were five Anglo-Dutch, and, as I said, one other; that makes the eighteen. The figure should be 38s., which is the basic, price for 15½ pet-cent. beet, and it rises by half-a-crown for each one per cent. I may say that a very large proportion is 7½ per cent. or thereabouts, so that I think we may fairly anticipate that a large number of growers—indeed the majority—will get 43s. per ton. These 12 factories have-already contracted with the growers for an acreage not quite as big as that of last year, but still not far short of what they contracted for last year. The other group of factories, which have not seen their way to make this offer to the growers, have made an offer contingent upon the price of sugar, in which, I may say, the whole gamble appears to be on the grower and not on the factories. These growers, apparently, may expect to receive 33s., or more if sugar rises, but at all events in that area this group of factories will obtain a much lower acreage than they did last year. I have not the precise figure, but I think it is not very much more than half—perhaps 60 per cent.; but the other group of factories have obtained contracts for about 150,000 or 160,000 acres already.

I am quite sure that, had it not been for this arrangement, we should have been confronted, in addition to our other agricultural problems, with a vast acreage of arable land practically going out of cultivation this year, and, seeing that we have secured the maintenance in cultivation, which gives a large amount of employment, a lot of it in the winter season when employment is slack, of well over 200,000 acres at a cost of the maximum figure I have mentioned, or perhaps less if all goes well, I think that, notwithstanding certain objections which hon. Members may entertain to the Beet Sugar Subsidy Act itself, we have obtained a very excellent result, which will be of immense help to our arable areas, at a very small public cost. It was really in the present circumstances almost too much to expect that this sudden halving of the subsidy could take place without some assistance to modify the fall. We have obtained 230,000 acres of land this year by this arrangement, and the result amply justifies the proposal.

I should like, in the first place, to thank the Minister for his very lucid statement, and, secondly, to associate myself entirely with everything that he has said. I am delighted that the Government have taken this step to help the sugar-beet growers. If I may say so without disrespect or offence to the right hon. Gentleman—I know that he has tried hard in many directions—it is the solitary piece of important direct assistance that he has been able to give to the agricultural community. He has been able to achieve it by following the example of the Conservative party in carrying out their policy still further, and on that I congratulate him.

And they followed the Labour party.

If we can get agriculture removed from party politics, it will be for the benefit of everyone. There are a number of questions that I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he has answered every one of them in his statement. Of course, 230,000 acres represents a considerable drop from what the acreage was last year, when it was in the neighbourhood of 300,000, but still it might have been very much worse, and it would have been very much worse, without the action that has been taken in this Financial Resolution and the Bill which will follow. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will favour us with his observations. He has been consistently opposed to this policy and I hope he will tell the Committee exactly what the policy of the Liberal party in regard to the beet-sugar crop is. Does the Liberal party desire to see this crop go out of cultivation altogether? If they do, I hope they will say so, and will also take steps to inform all Liberal candidates in East Anglia of the fact.

In order to avoid any complications, I must make it quite clear that the policy of the original Act cannot be discussed on this Money Resolution. The question is only whether this advance shall be made upon that policy and not the policy itself.

Surely we are entitled to ask, if hon. Members are going to oppose the Resolution, what alternative they have to put in its place. As far as I am aware, unless a measure in this direction is taken, there is no alternative to meet the situation. There are at present no other means of maintaining any appreciable acreage of sugar beet. It is not merely the sugar-beet crop that would suffer if this acreage was allowed to collapse. Undoubtedly, the potato growers would be equally heavily hit, because the inevitable result of a huge acreage suddenly going out of sugar beet would be a great increase in the acreage under potatoes, and we should get again a potato glut such as we had 15 months ago. Therefore, the amount of damage done to agriculture would extend to a number of other crops as well as sugar beet and would be very much greater than the mere cessation of the sugar-beet industry. If one reflects on the amount of unemployment that would be caused, not only in the sugar-beet industry and in the factories that manufacture beet, but also in the other branches of agriculture, the sum of £235,000 is a very small part of the loss that the community would suffer if this Measure was not passed. Therefore, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my Friends on this side of the Committee, that we shall give the Measure our cordial support.

This is not an occasion on which it would be in order to consider the whole policy of the beet-sugar subsidy, but it is an occasion on which, now that the Committee is asked to vary the original arrangement and to add a further sum beyond that originally contemplated by Parliament, it is proper to review the results of the experiment so far to see what cost has been involved and whether the results which have been attained are adequate to justify that expenditure. I propose to detain the Committee for a few minutes by an investigation on those lines. May I first express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet presented to Parliament the report on the working of the sugar-beet industry which has been, I believe, almost ready for presentation or has been completed for some little time past but which is not yet before the House. I would press him to undertake that it shall be before us prior to the debating of the Bill.

It will be out in about 10 days.

It is a pity that we have not the whole of the information before us to-day. It would probably have facilitated our Debate. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Bill before this further information is ready, particularly since it will be ready in the course of a few days. He has said that, after all, he was not responsible for this expenditure. He had to make the best of the situation as he found it. When this matter was debated a year ago, his predecessor and the Front Opposition Bench vied with one another which should be considered entitled to the credit of the beet-sugar subsidy. We have to consider not only who is entitled to the credit, but who is entitled to the debit. It is true that we have here a new industry established in England, and a great deal of energy and effort and enterprise have been shown by many people in the endeavour to found that new industry, and the community at large should be grateful for those efforts. It is also true that a certain amount of additional employment has thereby been created. All that has to be put to the credit side. If I were to tell the Committee that for every man brought into employment, the Exchequer has been finding for all these years £1 a week, they would be surprised, but I assert, and I propose to establish, that for every man brought into employment by this undertaking the State has had to find more than £1 every day, the House and the country would be still more surprised. And if I assert, as I do, and shall proceed to prove, that the cost to the Exchequer of the subsidies and other allowances is more than equal to the whole value of the sugar produced, then Parliament and the nation will have some conception of what it is that the State has been asked to undertake. Those are the propositions which I propose to establish.

First as to the amount of employment which is being provided. I put a series of questions to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Departments in order to elicit all the facts, because they were not before us in any official report. I asked how much land has been brought under cultivation for sugar-beet, and how much land in the same counties has dropped out of cultivation for other root crops? It is not fair to say that all this land under sugar-beet is land which is brought into cultivation and which would not otherwise be used. Simultaneously with the increase in the beet crop there has been a decrease in the crop of mangolds, turnips and other roots. The answer given to me was that in the counties which contained two-thirds of the total of the beet production, during the years of this experiment from 1924 to 1930, the beet area has gone up by 221,000 acres, and the other root area, excluding potatoes, has gone down by 104,000 acres—nearly by one-half. Employment in the production of other root crops is just about the same as in the production of sugar-beet. My authority for that statement is the late Colonel Sapwell, who was a leading agriculturist in the Eastern counties. He made a statement that, taking into account that a much larger tonnage is produced of other crops than is produced of beet on the same acreage, the amount of employment is about the same. We therefore have an addition of about 117,000 acres in those five counties, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Isle of Ely, and Yorkshire.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was cultivated on the land before sugar-beet was grown upon it? Some of it must have been put down to grass.

I do not know. Very likely a great part of the rest, or possibly the whole of the rest, may have been diverted from other kinds of arable cultivation. I want to limit myself to facts which I can establish. The fact is that, while there has been an increase of 221,000 acres in the five counties under beet, there has been a simultaneous decrease of 104,000 acres under other root crops. That is, in the counties which produced two-thirds of the beet. Therefore, we must add in respect of the rest of the country an equivalent amount. Add 50 per cent., and it makes 180,000 acres, and in Order to be quite sure that we are on the safe side, add another 10 per cent. and make it 200,000 acres. Let us assume that the beet-sugar subsidy has resulted in 200,000 acres of land being under arable cultivation which might not have been under arable cultivation otherwise. Let us also assume that all the men employed on the land would otherwise have been out of work altogether—a most extravagant assumption. If there were no beet-sugar, a large proportion of the men would certainly be employed at something else, but let us take the extreme case and assume that they would all he unemployed. How many men are concerned? I put down a question also to the right hon. Gentleman, and he told me on the 26th February that the number of workers per 1,000 acres of mainly arable land in this country was 36.6, of whom 27.9 were regular male workers. Take it at 40 men for every 1,000 acres. It would give in this cultivation 8,000 men. In addition, there are those who are employed in the factories.

I do not want unduly to restrict the right hon. Gentleman, but this is really a criticism of the original policy, whereas what we have to discuss this morning is whether there shall be the extension asked for in the Money Resolution. If I allow the original policy to be criticised, it will reopen the whole question of what has already been decided by Parliament.

I mentioned the subject to the Chairman of Committees, and I understood from him that it would be quite in order to lay before the Committee the proposition that the expenditure which had been involved by the original policy was so enormously costly that the House must consider once, twice and three times before authorising any further expenditure. Any further expenditure which is incurred this year we may be asked to repeal next year, and our action to-day may involve a considerable increase in expenditure. We are now departing from the original policy, and surely Parliament is entitled, before it decides whether or not to do so, to see what the results of that policy have been.

I must adhere to my Ruling, because while I am in this Chair I am responsible for the procedure. While within reasonable limits I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to produce arguments against the extension, he is not entitled to discuss the whole of the original policy.

Am I not entitled to prove that the result of this policy has been to devolve upon Parliament a charge of over £1 per day per man employed?

I think only in so far as to object to the present extension, but it is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is going rather beyond that now. He is raising the whole question of policy as decided by Parliament, and to discuss the whole policy appears to be rather stretching the rights of procedure observed in this Committee.

With all respect, what I am discussing is, what has been the result of that policy and whether Parliament is or is not well advised to engage in further expenditure upon the same lines. Unless I am allowed to complete my argument, I am afraid that I must discontinue my observations.

I have already stated that in so far as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to argue that there shall be no further extension, he is entitled within limits to bring arguments in support, but I cannot allow the merits of the original question of policy to be discussed on this Vote.

I am not discussing it. I am discussing what has been the cash result on the credit side and oh the debt side of our experience hitherto, and I understand that I may complete my argument on those lines. The number of men employed in the factories has been 2,200 permanently and in addition 7,700 for a period of less than four months, which is equal to 2,500 for a period of a year. Altogether then the men employed on the land, in the factories permanently and in the factories temporarily, is 12,700 men per annum. I am stretching every point to make the number as large as possible so as to state the case as favourably to this enterprise as I can. As a matter of fact, the actual number will probably not be more than two-thirds of that because great numbers of those men, if they were not employed on sugar-beet production, would certainly be employed on some other form of agriculture. But assume that they were all out of work altogether. What has been the cost of the subsidy to date? The right hon. Gentleman told me on the 19th February of this year that from the commencement of the Act up to the 16th February the total subsidy paid was £22,115,000. That is not all, because this industry has been granted a rebate of taxation, which would otherwise have been received by the State. If this enterprise had never been embarked upon, there would have been several millions more duty on sugar which would have gone into the Exchequer and which now does not go into the Exchequer, and the industry has the advantage of that rebate. The amount to the 31st March this year was £7,039,000, and this year, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me, the estimated amount is £1,700,000. So you have total outgoings in one form or another from the State of £31,000,000. That is not all, because there are still three years more to run. Several millions will have to be provided until the end of this experiment, and there will also be the cost of the grant that we are asked to make to-day. Taking it at the very minimum it will be an additional £2,000,000 a year—it will certainly be more, but putting it at the very lowest it will be £2,000,000—of subsidy and rebate of tax in the next three years. That will amount to £6,000,000, making the amount £37,000,000.

That is not all, because the State has guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act loans of £2,206,000 to this industry. Of that, according to an answer given a year ago, £489,000 had been repaid at that date and £295,000 had been written off as a dead loss. There was £1,400,000 outstanding, and possibly some of that may be lost to the State. There we have the total facts. Already spent and existing commitments, £37,000,000. That is on the debit side. In the latest year for which we have information, 1929–30, the subsidy, so I was told in an answer on the 17th November last, amounted to £4,229,000 in that year and rebate of taxation £1,709,000, making a total of £5,538,000 in a single year. If we take 13,000 men as the maximum number employed for an expenditure of just under £6,000,000—perhaps that was an exceptional year—or we will say on an expenditure of £5,000,000, it means for every roan brought into employment an expenditure of £384 in the year, or about 25s. for every working day. That is the proposition which I set out to establish and I think the facts, which I have given wholly from official sources, completely prove it.

I will put it in another way. Some 200,000 acres may have been brought into cultivation—suppose they have—at a cost of £5,000,000 per annum. That is to say, for each acre of land the State has paid £25 a year. I will put the position, finally, in another form. In answer to a question on 23rd February this year the right hon. Gentleman told me that the latest period for which complete information was available was the manufacturing campaign 1929–30, and he said that the value of the beet crop in that year was, £5,301,000. That is a year in which the subsidy and the rebate amounted to £5,900,000. The State paid £5,900,000 to get a crop worth £5,301,000. The growers received not only the value of their crop, amounting to £5,300,000, but more than an equivalent amount from the State.

Not wholly the growers—

It is not only the growers but the growers and the factory-owners. At any rate, that is what the country had to pay.

Did the farm workers get it?

Only a small proportion.

Twenty-eight shillings a week.

A landlord's ramp.

The conclusion is that it would have been money in pocket to the State if we had given the whole value of the sugar crop to the producers not to produce it, to sit still in idleness, not to build their factories, not to do any work, and to give them all their profits. The State would have saved £600,000 in that year. It will be said that there is some advantage gained to the community in reduction of prices through the larger production of sugar, but as the production of sugar in Great Britain is only about one per cent. of the total world production, the effect upon world prices is perfectly negligible. Much of this stream of gold poured out from the Exchequer goes undoubtedly to the factory owners. Some of them are British, but great numbers of them are of foreign nationality. It must not be assumed for a moment that the whole or the bulk of the £37,000,000 has gone or is going to the agriculturists of this country.

No doubt, in the eastern counties, the districts largely affected, this arrangement is highly popular, and I must not be assumed to be speaking for some of my hon. Friends on these benches who represent agricultural constituencies. Many of their constituents are directly concerned and, therefore, naturally the noble lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) takes advantage of the position and says, "We are a democratic country. Let us give large sums of money to the voters and let us get their support." He accuses hon. Members of other parties of engaging in mass bribery for political purposes, and now taunts us with not venturing to oppose this proposal, because he knows that those who receive the financial products of this subsidy will probably very much resent any criticism of the expenditure. If in a cotton district such as I represent or in a coal district it was proposed to give £37,000,000 subsidy to the industry it would be highly popular there, but whether it is sound national finance is an entirely different matter.

Why should this subsidy be so heavy in order to enable our agriculturists to compete with other sugar growers? Partly because we have no tradition in the industry here—it is a new thing—and partly it may be, because of the uncertainties of our climate, the production of roots for sugar-beet is much lower than on the Continent. A report of the British Sugar-beet Society for the year 1929, the last report that I have received, states:

"The weight of roots per acre, notwithstanding a very favourable season, is still disappointing, being only 8.65 tons, or just above that of 1928. Although the average is so low, many excellent crops have been grown, even up to and exceeding 20 tons per acre; and we repeat what we said last year that it is a standing reproach to any farmers contracting to grow sugar beet that they can only produce three or four tons per acre."

The average is 8.56 tons. The right hon. Gentleman has told me that on the Continent of Europe the average is 10 tons. The difference, of course, has to be made up at the cost of the British taxpayer. I was; informed that in the climates where sugar cane is produced, the amount of sugar produced in Mauritius was 3.360 lbs. per acre of cultivation and in Jamaica was 2.800 lbs.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the wage rates are there?

That does not arise in this connection, but I have no doubt that cultivation there is much cheaper. However, I have not the facts. My point is that, owing to our climate, we have to pay enormous subsidies in order to provide for the production here of a commodity which, owing to the bounty of nature, can be produced more easily elsewhere.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire to restrict legitimate discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman is really discussing the original policy. All that we are entitled to discuss to-day is an advance for a period of 12 months. While it is perfectly legitimate to use arguments to show why there should be no extension, it is most improper on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, to embark upon the question of the original policy as the right hon. Gentleman is doing now.

I must plead guilty that in that connection I have gone rather wide, but I wished to give an explanation of the reason why the cost of production here has to be subsidised so very heavily, with the result that we are called upon to pass the Vote that is asked for to-day. As a matter of fact, there is a world glut of sugar to-day. When the right hon. Gentleman announced this extension of policy, not long ago, the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) put this pertinent question to him:

"Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a time when there is a world glut of sugar is the most suitable time to subsidise additional sugar production?"

That is what we are doing here. We are paying out lavishly enormous sums of money to bribe the farmers to produce a crop of which there is a glut throughout the world, and when hon. Members above the Gangway are strongly urging upon the Government and the nation the urgent need for the most rigid economy in national expenditure. The leaders of the noble Lord who has been advocating an extension of this subsidy have said that their first duty must be to reduce national expenditure. The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has said.

"Let mo sum up our policy; rigorous economy and a reduction of taxation."

And at the same time in regard to this question, the right hon. Gentleman, only a few months ago, said:

"Sugar I regard as a very important crop. It is important to have it as part of your agriculture. The sugar subsidy, or bounty, is drawing to a close, and the whole situation wants the most careful examination to see what assistance is necessary to make sugar a prominent crop in Great Britain. At present the acreage is something like 300,000. I think that acreage might be doubled. … Whether it will be better to do that by a bounty or by an arrangement of duties I cannot yet say, but by one or another it is a thing that ought to be done, and shall be done."

In one breath he declares in favour of the most rigid economy and in the next advocates doubling the sugar acreage; and the Noble Lord strongly endorses that policy and advocates an extension even beyond what is now proposed. Hon. Members above the Gangway remind me of a character in one of Mr. Bernard Shaw's earlier novels

"who practised the utmost economy in order to indulge in the most expensive habits."

Whatever is done to-day to implement an engagement entered into by the Government, we must view with great caution an expenditure of this kind. Whenever there are subsidies those who receive the benefit sooner or later come and say: "we are sorry we cannot adhere to the original bargain; we must have something more." I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give an assurance on behalf of the sugar industry whom he is now befriending——

The growers and the labourers. The whole of this money is going to the growers.

Will he assure us that the original proposition will be maintained; that if a subsidy was given for a series of years the industry at the end of that time would be able to make itself self-supporting, and be in a position to compete with other countries. We shall have to wait and see, but in the meantime the facts I have given to the Committee establish quite clearly that this is involving an enormous and most lavish expenditure at the expense of the public purse.

The very interesting and instructive speech of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) constitutes the finest condemnation of capitalism and private enterprise that we have heard for a long time, and, as he worships at that shrine, he will have to answer his own arguments. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fundamental proposals involved in this Resolution, and to make one or two remarks on the existing situation in regard to the allocation of this grant. The criticism that has been rightly made has been directed against the entire absence of Government control in the allocation of the original grant. Had those responsible in the first instance had an opportunity of putting up machinery to have given the grower that fair proportion of the grant towards the production of sugar beet we should have had far less criticism from those who have, rightly, opposed the subsidy, because it has undoubtedly resulted in those who put capital into the factory side of the industry taking the cream and leaving those who have done the hard work, the farm workers and farmers, with just the skimmed milk so far as the subsidy is concerned.

The fundamental ground for the necessity of this Resolution is the fact that the bottom has fallen out of the price of sugar as it has in regard to the prices of almost every home-grown product. Far be it from me as a new Member to question the figures which the right hon. Member for Darwen, with his wide experience, so carefully presents to the Committee, but he lets me in when he refers to my friend the late Colonel Sapwell as stating that the cost of growing ordinary roots per season in East Anglia is quite as high as the cost of producing sugar-beet. My own experience as a grower does not bear out the figures to any extent. It costs from 40s. to 45s. per acre to raise sugar-beet and lift it, and I should be surprised if other root crops cost much more than from 30s. to 35s. per acre.

The wider principle is the absence of an adequate return owing to the lack of control in relation to the subsidy; and that is the point at which the grower and labourer have serious cause of complaint. The present Government, and other governments, have consented to the principle of a subsidy. I am not arguing at present for or against that principle, but, having decided on the subsidy, I suggest to the Government that the time has come when they should face up frankly to the challenge as to how far we are going to allow public money, voted for the development of agriculture in a depressed state, to filter through to the financial experts in the factories who have been able to manipulate three-quarters of the profits.

I want to congratulate the Minister that in this particular Resolution he has earmarked, so far as a guarantee can earmark anything, the complete amount of this grant to the grower and the worker. An hon. Friend behind me asked a pertinent question just now: What has the labourer received out of this? I suggest that the time has come when in allocating this money Parliament should express in no uncertain way its determination that money so voted shall go to those for whom it was originally intended, that is, to those who need the help most. The farm worker has always been forgotten in this House. He has, been forgotten throughout this Parliament. It is high time that the agricultural industry received more adequate consideration. If my Liberal friends can find it in their hearts, whilst raising all the criticism they like against these proposals, to bring more money into our industry, to give a little more constructive help to those of us who are struggling to get something of a practical kind done, I am sure that they will be rendering a wider and more distinct public service than that rendered in the speech to which we have just listened.

I am sure that we all listened with great interest to the skilfully prepared speech so eloquently delivered by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). I would like to congratulate him on his ingenuity in putting his figures together. I must say, however, that I am quite at a loss to understand how some of his figures were arrived at. He stated that the sugar beet industry was giving employment to only some 12,000 men on the soil of this country.

Additional employment.

As recently as 25th February last the Minister of Agriculture stated in Debate that the sugar beet subsidy was responsible for an increase of employment affecting 40,000 growers and 30,000 casual workers. I am at a loss therefore to understand how the right hon. Member for Darwen could make the statement that only 12,000 men received any advantage as a result of this subsidy. I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman further in his figures. He seemed to think in regard to any crop, which could be imported from abroad, and which when imported would pay a tax, this country loses if it is grown here and provides employment here, instead of being imported. That is an argument which I do not wish to follow.

When we hear so much criticism of this subsidy from the right hon. Member for Darwen, we are entitled to ask what scheme and what plan he has to help the depressed industry of agriculture. I think I am right in saying that the price of sugar to consumers and the subsidy given to growers in this country is less than that given to growers in any other country in which sugar-beet is grown. But when we are considering the estimates we should take into account how they compare with the estimates submitted to the House last year. Last year £6,000,000 was devoted to the encouragement of this industry. This year the total is not to be £6,000,000, but £2,150,000. That is a reduction of £3,850,000 in favour of the Treasury. In considering these figures we must also take into account the advantage which the Treasury obtains from the Excise Duty. The estimated yield of the Excise Duty as a result of the growing of this crop is, I understand, £1,500,000. When we take on the one hand the saving of £3,850,000 and add the Excise Duty of £1,500,000, we find that the Exchequer is the gainer this year by no less than £5,350,000.

But this additional grant is not in the nature of a gift. It is in the nature of a small gamble. The price of sugar may well go up, when the subsidy will not be payable. When the proposals for a subsidy were first before the House in 1924, and when every aspect of the problem was being most carefully reviewed and considered, the price of sugar was 12s. 6d. to 13s. a cwt. Now it is 6s. 4½d. a cwt., a difference of over 6s. That difference of 6s. is being made up, under these proposals, to the extent of only 1s. 3d. per cwt. In other words the industry, the growers and the factories and those associated with the industry, are somehow or other finding the remaining three-quarters of the money. That is really a striking tribute to the progress which the industry has made in the few years during which it has been established. It means that the growers have become much more efficient, in spite of the discouraging observations made by the right hon. Member for Darwen regarding the yield per acre. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that our growers were not up to their job, and did not understand how to grow beet. In spite of those disparaging reflections I maintain that our growers will prove themselves the finest farmers of beet, as they are of other things, in the whole world. It will be found that in some districts land which is devoted to the cultivation of sugar beet is not wholly suitable for the growing of that crop. That fact accounts very largely for the difference in the yield per acre in this country compared with the yield per acre in some foreign countries which are quoted against us.

It is a great tribute to the growers and factories at home that they have been able to face up to this loss, this difference of 4s. 9d., and find the money somehow out of the industry, and only come to the Government for this meagre amount of assistance. I wish that it had been possible to make a more substantial offer which would have maintained the acreage under sugar beet at the same level this year as last. Last year 348,000 acres of sugar beet were grown. The Minister has said that this year the acreage will be 225,000. That is a very considerable drop. It is to be viewed with a certain measure of alarm because it means that larger crops of potatoes will be grown, and we may find ourselves in difficulties with other crops. I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for his courage in facing up to a difficult situation, and a problem which is particularly difficult from his point of view, and to thank him for what he is doing in this respect for the industry of agriculture.

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his speech may I ask him whether he suggests that there are 40,000 people employed full-time, all through the year, producing beet?

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the speech which was made by the Minister on the last occasion I think he will find that I am right in saying that he stated that there were 40,000 growers associated with this industry.

Employed full time?

Wholly or mainly employed. I do not see how people can be employed full time in the growing of sugar beet, which is a seasonal crop. They must be doing something else during the rest of the year. As I was saying, I wish to thank the Minister for what he is doing for the industry in this respect, and to point out that in helping this industry he is not only helping the growers—who consist very largely of smallholders—but he is also helping the other workers in the industry, as well as the producers of the coal which is required in the factories, and the workers in the transport services, and many other associated branches of industry.

I am very glad to have been here this morning and to have seen a smile on the face of the noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). It is the first time I have ever seen the Noble Lord smile in connection with anything which was being done for agriculture. I have known him to "go off at the deep end" on many occasions because he thought that this Government were not doing anything for agriculture, but now that he expects that agriculture, or rather someone in agriculture, will reap some benefit from the action of the Government, he smiles. But he does not say anything about what is going to happen to those who do the work of producing this sugar beet. What he says is that the grower is going to get some consideration for growing the sugar beet and, apparently, it is all right as long as the grower is to be safeguarded. That is what the subsidy means. It is to safeguard the growers against any loss on this crop but whether the labourer is going to get a living wage or not, apparently, does not concern the Noble Lord.

I protest strongly against that observation. The attitude of hon. Members on this side of the House is that the prosperity of agriculture is necessary before a living wage can be paid. The people who are suffering most from the agricultural depression are the agricultural labourers who have been turned out of work as a result of it, and for whom hon. Members opposite provide no unemployment insurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you?"]

I am glad to know that the Noble Lord considers that it is people such as employers who have to be considered first——

I never said that. Will the hon. Member please quote what I said?

I am quoting it as nearly as I can.

The hon. Member is quoting it wrongly.

I suggest to the noble lord that if the labourers have not a proper living wage you cannot expect to get a return out of them. I have been a carman for many years and I know that if you do not feed a horse, he cannot work. If you do not give the agricultural labourer a proper living wage you cannot expect him to do the work. I know as much about the agricultural labourer as the noble lord does because I was born on a farm. I got off it at the earliest possible opportunity because I saw too much of it and what it meant in the case of my father and his family. But I have never forgotten that I am the son of an agricultural labourer and I am always glad to say a word for the agricultural labourer. I am more concerned with him than with the farmer. I know both of them but I know one better than the other. I am pleased to know, at any rate, that the Noble Lord agrees that something is being done in this case for agriculture, but I wish to know from the Minister whether there is any stipulation with the growers in connection with this subsidy that the men shall receive a living wage. It is very nice to know that the men have a trade board or a wages board or whatever it is called, where they meet the other side—and where they are forced to accept the amount submitted to them by the employers and by the independent members. I have yet to learn, by the way, about the position of those independent members in many instances. But if the noble lord or anyone else in this House thinks that 28 shillings to 30 shillings a week is a living wage for an agricultural labourer I suggest that he himself should have a turn at it.

The hon. Member is quite entitled to ask, in connection with this proposal, whether the workers are going to have any share in the benefit of this subsidy, but we cannot discuss the whole question of agricultural wages. I would also point out that in the original Act governing this matter, machinery is established for determining wages and the hon. Member is only entitled to criticise that, if the terms laid down in the original Act are not being complied with.

But is it not a tact that in the principal Act the determining of wages did not relate to men working on the land, but to men working in the factories?

I am not quite sure on that point.

On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the wages which the men are earning on the farms are determined by wages boards which were set up by the Labour party in 1924?

Is it not a fact that the machinery in the original Act was for dealing with the wages of those employed in the factories and that the wages boards are not referred to in that Act?

I think that is quite true. The hon. Member is entitled to raise a question as to the remuneration paid to he workers by the growers who receive this additional sum, but he must not enter into a discussion of the general question of agricultural wages.

I only wish to ask whether the workers who do this work for the growers can expect a living wage? We are guaranteeing the grower a certain sum for the growing of his crops. Is there a guarantee that the men who work for him are to have a minimum wage—not a maximum of course—for the work which they are doing to produce this crop? The Noble Lord joins in the discussion again to say that the wages of these men have been fixed by the wages board. What he actually said was their "earnings," but no workman ever will get what he earns. The Noble Lord would not be there if the worker got what he earned. He can only get certain wages which he is able to demand or to force. We do not know what the growers actually obtain from this subsidy. We never hear about the by-products or about the benefit to the land. Some of us know something about agricultural work and we know that there are alternate crops. We know that the grower not only gets a reasonable sum for the sugar-beet, but that, after the ground has been cleared, there is a benefit to the succeeding crop. We do not hear anything about that, but we ought to, because then we should really know what is happening.

Then again, with regard to the number of men employed, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has given us a list of men who, according to the statistics from the office, are engaged in this industry, both inside and outside the factories, but we do not get to know what is happening, in connection with the sugar refineries, to the men displaced. I belong to an organisation that knows that by this method of working a large number of men who were previously in good work are taken out of work through this sugar beet subsidy. Not that I am against the subsidy for the agricultural workers and the employers. I know that you have to look around and see how one is interlinked with the other, and if you are going to do something to improve the conditions of one set of men, you must also look after the other set of men, which these people do not do. They know that by their method of going on they will be doing some benefit to a certain section and injury to others. These things want thoroughly looking into and dissecting, and when we dissect them and find that there is this thing going on, we shall see that it is time the Government were told to alter their tactics and to do something in another direction.

Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us what proportion of the subsidy during last year went direct to the growers and what proportion went to the factories?

It is impossible to dissect the destination of the subsidy. All that I can tell the hon. Member, in reply to his question, is what the growers received for beet last year. They received last year 46s. per ton, and the price that they will receive, after they have had additional help this year, will be 38s., or a difference of 8s. per ton. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) gave us some very interesting figures, and I should have liked an opportunity of making some observations in regard to them, but it would not be in order now. The right hon. Gentleman necessarily had rather to confine his calculations to the strict figures, but he has thereby left out of account a number of very important considerations. For example, the beet-sugar factories give an enormous amount of employment in transport, coal production, the production of lime and machinery, and to all sorts of other ancillary and remote occupations entirely beyond those immediately employed in growing the beet. It has given a vast volume of employment, entirely apart from those employed on the land itself, and all that must not be lost sight of. At the same time you have to remember that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would have found much comfort if he had given the House the figures of the actual wages being paid in Mauritius, where there has been a very large reduction in wages paid. I do not think he would like us to contemplate that that should be the standard which should guide our country.

I did not suggest that for a moment.

No, but it was indirectly related to the fact that we could maintain this price when their distresses are even possibly greater than ours. There are all sort* of other considerations affecting the policy in this country. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite realises that in criticising this Government he did not recognise that for the first time we have as far as possible got a watertight arrangement, an arrangement whereby the additional help goes to those who produce the goods. That has not been done before, and if that had been done before, we should not be confronted with so many criticisms now. The amount which has been put away in previous years out of profits is enormous, but under this particular proposal that is not possible. This figure is only paid when no profits are made; it is only paid when no amount is placed to reserve, even when no amount is allowed for depreciation. The whole of it, excluding these possibilities, has to be paid to the grower.

Here I would like to say, in regard to the very proper interjection from below the Gangway in regard to wages in East Anglia, that I did my best, but, owing to the action of a group of companies that would not accept these terms, it is the counties of East Anglia which are suffering most and not receiving benefit from the scheme. The Anglo-Dutch group of factories derives its supply from those counties, and they are not making use of this arrangement and are not paying the enhanced price to the grower. That only exaggerates the seriousness of their refusal to make use of this arrangement. They can well afford it from their enormous accumulations of the previous years. I think this arrangement, whatever may be the criticism of the scheme itself, has not been subjected to any hostile criticism and that it is an arrangement which secures the maintenance in cultivation of a vast area of land.

There was one other feature to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. It is not fair to assume that the growers here in the course of six or eight years will have had the experience and efficiency of men who have been growing this crop for 40 or 50 years. It is not quite reasonable to compare the two. There has, however, been a remarkable increase in the efficiency of the growing of beet in this country and in regard to the researches which the joint Committees have made in helping to produce a seed which will give a good yield in this country. There are a number of highly technical questions connected with it, but on the whole I think they have made good progress, and the evidence of that is in what is now occurring, because the original subsidy was 19s. a cwt.

With a phenomenal drop in world prices, we had got 327,000 acres under beet. That is a striking testimony to the growers in this short period. However, so fas as this particular scheme is concerned, I think it has emerged from this discussion fairly well unscathed. I entirely share the view of my hon. friend that it is incumbent upon us to take special measures as far as we can see that the prosperity of this industry is not stopped; and that action must be linked up with safeguarding the position of the worker.

And the consumer.

So far as the consumer is concerned, my hon. friend may be interested to know that he has got on fairly well. I will give the retail prices of sugar: Great Britain, 2½d. a lb.; Italy, 6½d.; Czechoslovakia, 4¼d.; the Netherlands, 4d.; France and Poland, 3¾d.; Germany, 3¼d.; United States, 2¾d.

Is that under Protection?

Of course under our national policy, as regards the absence of tariffs and so on, the consumer in this country is far better off than in any other country in Europe.

I would not have risen if the Minister of Agriculture had not rather questioned some of the figures submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in connection with employment.

I did not question the figures.

I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman does not question the figures about the extra number of men employed in sugar beet cultivation. He pointed out that my right hon. Friend did not refer to the extra work and the amount of coal consumed. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the home-grown sugar had not been milled in these subsidised factories, there are other factories already in existence which would have secured the work. Therefore, all that the subsidy has done has been to divert the labour from one factory to another. It is not, therefore, any extra work or wealth secured to the community as a whole. I pass from that one point. I have no desire to question or criticise the Minister on this Supplementary Estimate. I think that he has done well in making the bargain he has. I only hope that it will not be taken as a precedent for the continuation of the subsidy year by year in the future.

I rise with great reluctance, as one of those who acquiesced in the original policy, but I think most of us on this side will agree that that policy was applied in a very wrong way, and we object to any extension of the original agreement by such a Vote as we are proposing to-day. We find that instead of the money going to improve the condition of the farm worker, it has made his condition worse than it was before. It has casualised the work to a great extent, and when these farm workers are out of work they are expressly excluded from securing any employment in the factories during the off-season. Some enthusiasm for a subsidy will be found, perhaps, on the part of the growers, but if you asked for any cheers from the farm-workers, you would be greeted with derision, because they recognise that they have not got any advantage at all. In Suffolk, the wages have been recently forced down to 28 shillings a week, and unless the factories accept the terms they will not get any of the subsidy. In the adjoining county, Norfolk, we find that the wages are 30 shillings a week, and the same in Lincolnshire. There has been no honourable carrying out of the bargain by the farmers towards their labourers in any of the counties, and while at this particular juncture, when the bottom has fallen out of the sugar market, the farmers may not be doing as well, I maintain that through the past five years they have done extremely well—not, perhaps, as well as the financiers who put their money into it—and they have had no bowels of compassion for the workers at all.

Unless the farm worker gets a better deal from the farmer, I should be strongly opposed to any kind of subsidy or dole. The farmer has had doles right and left. He has had cheap railway rates, and has been excused from all his local rating. Even the Old Age Pension Act, in the main, has simply meant a subsidy to the farmer, because he has reduced the wages of these men at 65—very often most valuable men—by the amount of the pension. And yet he comes here all the time like the daughters of the horse-leech crying, "Give, give!", and is not prepared to help those who are in an infinitely worse position than himself. I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen his way to withdraw the Vote to-day unless he got a central wages board for the farm worker, or saw that the farm worker was safeguarded and protected, as well as the farmer and financier. While we let this go on this occasion, if there is any question of an extension of this subsidy or of applying these methods to any other form of agriculture, I, for one, and I am sure many other hon. Members will give it bitterest opposition both from the point of view of the farm worker and the consumer.

I want to move the Second Reading of the Petroleum Bill.

The Adjournment has been moved from the Front Bench.

I want to raise a point of Order on that. Is there a difference and a distinction between the occupants of the Front Bench and those who occupy the back benches?

Which Bill does the hon. Member want to move?

The Petroleum Bill.

It is not the next Order.

I know that it is not, but as far as I have read the Rules of the House the Front Bench——

Immediately the Government Orders have been read, it is in the power of the Front Bench to move the Adjournment of the House. That was done, and I accepted it.

On the Motion for the Adjournment, I should like to make another point. I am speaking from the point of view of those Members who have put down the Cathedrals Measure, which has been before the House for some time. We have to get that Measure under the Enabling Act. We have been reproached in the past with bringing these Measures forward at a late hour at night, but that is not due to the absence of any desire of ours to get the Government to give us time. The Government are unable to give us time, so we hoped that we might get it discussed at a reasonable hour by putting it down on a Friday, and now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury has moved the Adjournment of the House.

The Noble Lord knows that this Motion would have to compete with prior Orders, which would take us at least till four o'clock.

I know that the prior Orders would come first, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will help us to take these Measures at an earlier time. We shall have to put this one down for eleven o'clock on Monday. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) desires to discuss the Measure, but I do not think that it is opposed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will let us get in on Monday.

I have already given that assurance.

May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it is within the Standing Orders that Measures which appear in the later part of the Order Paper may not be taken unless they are first of all read out from the Table? I put that point because I have known eases in this House, when Measures, which are put down on the Order Paper and are far removed from the particular item last disposed of, have been taken. I understand from your Ruling to-day, however, that because four Orders before the Petroleum Bill were not dealt with, the Petroleum Bill cannot be moved.

I ruled that when the Government business has come to an end and the Adjournment of the House is moved from the Front Bench, I can accept the Motion, and I have done so.

Did not the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) get his voice in first before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, and is he ruled out because the Front Bench have moved she Adjournment?

The hon. Member cannot move his Bill until it is called.

I have taken some trouble to study the Rules of the House because I realise the difficulties of private Members. This Bill deals with the safety of life. What I was going to say was to help and not to hinder. If it is difficult to consider the matter further, it might be taken into account another time. I want to know what is the position in regard to the rights of private Members. The calling of a Measure is not dealt with in the Standing Orders, At ordinary times we can take a hop, step and a jump from No. 2 to No. 9 on the Order Paper. It has been done on occasions. [Interruption.] I have seen it done in the House. What is the position if a Measure is an agreed one, as this one is, practically? We might know the position, so as to save Members having to sit here night after night waiting for a Bill to be called, wasting their energies and their time. All that could be avoided if there was a little more understanding, in place of one man being in a position to say, "I will tell you when the time comes what it is possible to do." I believe in being reasonable and crediting other Members with the same consideration that I claim to have myself.

I have nothing to do with whether this is a contentious or a non-contentious Bill. I am not to know whether a Bill is contentious or non-contentious. All I am concerned with now is that a Motion has been submitted from the Treasury Bench and that I have accepted it. If the hon. Member has any submissions to make on the other point, he should take an opportunity of doing so through the usual channels.