PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.88
885
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
15832
56
No. 53.
-EXTRACT FROM "THE TIMES." MAY 14, 1907.
SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY.
House of Lords, May 13, 1907. THE EARL OF DENBIGH rose to ask His Majesty's Government "whether, in view of their expressed desire to promote remunerative employment in agricultural districts and check the exodus to the towns, they are now prepared to seriously encourage the establishment of a sugar beet industry in the British Isles, and thereby ensure that a portion of the eighteen millions now paid annually for imported sugar shall be available for labour in rural districts at home; whether they realize that the main obstacles to the introduction of the capital necessary for the erection of factories are (1) the threatened imposition of a heavy Excise duty on any home-grown sugar; (2) the attitude of individual members of the Government towards the Brussels Con- vention and the possible reintroduction of bounty-fed sugar; and whether His Majesty's Government will now, by a rebate of excise for a term of years, accord to an English sugar industry the same encouragement as has been given to Irish tobacco, and also give such an assurance on the subject of the Brussels Convention as will tend to remove the feeling of uncertainty now prevailing." He said he had given notice of this question because of the desire expressed by members of the Government in the House of Commons to do something to stop the depopulation of the agricultural districts. The sugar beet industry, if once started, would do much to remedy that unhappy state of things. When he raised this question last year the Government met him with a blank refusal, because his proposals were described as savouring of protection. The President of the Board of Agriculture then said that sugar beet could not yield more than a profit of £3 per acre, and that the farmers, therefore, would not think it worth while to cultivate it. The farmer's profit would depend upon the price he got for his beet, and the price the sugar factories would pay for the beet would depend upon the price they got for the finished article. Why was it that the Ministerial conscience had permitted the growing of Irish tobacco! They were told, first, that there was no analogy between the case of tobacco and sugar beet, and, secondly, that the Government only wanted to prove that tobacco could be grown, and that as soon as that was done they would tax it up to the full capacity. But there was a great deal to be done before it was proved that the beet sugar industry could be established. The first factory put up in this country would be absolutely experimental, and it was surely worth while for the Government to strain a point in order to assist the establishment of the first factory. A great obstacle to the introduction of capital was the attitude of various members of the Government towards the Brussels Sugar Convention. The Prime Minister had said, “I regard These bounties bounties as merely another form of protective duties. appear to me to be bad; they disturb trade, hinder the development of the country, and, above all, punish the very nations which accept them; so I do not know what is to be said in favour of them." Mr. Gladstone had expressed himself in similar fashion, and other members of the Government had declared their intention of upsetting the Brussels Convention at the first opportunity. He did not ask the Government to pledge themselves to any definite adherence to the Convention as it stood, but he did ask them, when negotiating on the subject, not to agree to any provisions permitting the re-establishment of bounties, or of the cartel system. There was no doubt that when the Convention was reconsidered very strong influences would be brought to bear to re-establish the cartels and, to a certain extent, direct bounties. If these influences won the day, those who might have invested capital in the establishment of sugar factories in this country would be at the mercy of foreign trusts. In the United States in the last 13 years. the sugar produced had risen from 20,000 tons to 433,000 tons a year, and although that had been the result of a very heavy protective tariff, it showed at any rate the importance attached to this industry in other countries. In this country on all hands agriculturists were considering this industry and were waiting for some encouragement. Here was an industry which might be revived, and the most ardent free-trader could not com- What had been done for Irish tobacco plain that his food would cost him more.
might be done for English beet. The Government were believers in stimulating influences. Could it be that they were stimulated to make the concession to Ireland by Irish ginger, and that it would be necessary for English agriculturists to resort to similar means before the Government would move in this matter? (Laughter and "Hear, hear.")
1
57
LORD DENMAN, in reply, said this was not the first time the noble earl had raised the question of the sugar duties. Last year Lord Denbigh brought the matter forward and obtained a direct statement from the Government. He had asked the question again now, but had brought forward no new fact and no further com- bination of circumstances to show why the Government should reconsider the decision they came to last Session. In replying for the Government on that occasion, he pointed out the difficulty the Goverment might have of withdrawing the rebate if once they had allowed it, and that view was endorsed by the noble marquis, the leader of the Opposition. It was obvious that industries which were unable to stand upon their own merits must be a source of anxiety to any Government, and experience showed that, once a rebate had been granted, it was not found possible to withdraw the rebate on the date originally intended. He would not go into the free-trade arguments of the question, because he was well aware that he was address- ing a protectionist House. If we grew sugar in this country by means of a rebate and undersold the West Indian planter, we should be dealing a very severe blow, probably a death blow, at our West Indian trade. At present this trade showed every symptom of being an increasing and prosperous trade, and last year more than 500,000 cwts. of West Indian sugar came into this country than the year before. Another argument was this: the existing duty on sugar was 4s. 2d. per cwt., and, so far as he knew, there was no probability in the near future that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to mitigate that tax. If we built up a sugar industry in this country by means of a rebate, the Chancellor would have to continue the sugar tax simply in order to give the rebate. The noble earl asked what was the attitude of the Government towards the Brussels Convention. The Con- vention was loathed and detested by all the sugar-using trades. He had a particular reason for disliking the Convention. He owned a few shares in an Indian tea company, and one result of excluding Russian sugar was that Russia had put in countervailing duties on Indian tea. Therefore the poor shareholders in Indian and Ceylon tea companies had to pay for the benefits conferred upon this country by the Convention. (Laughter.) The members of His Majesty's Government adhered to the opinion they had given with regard to the Convention. The noble earl could not expect a definite reply as to what would be the position of the Government when they came to consider the Convention in 1908. It was essentially a matter of taxa- tion, and when the time came the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the announcement in the House of Commons. Then Lord Denbigh asked whether the Government would give the same encouragement to sugar beet growing as had been given to Irish tobacco. The noble earl was under a strange misapprehension. No encouragement had been given to Irish tobacco that English beet growers did not already possess. Last year the noble earl stated that the rebate on the industry on such a scale as he wished to see in this country would amount to about £400,000 a year, and he would like to have it for from five to ten years. The noble earl seemed to be unmindful of the interests of the consumers, of bakers and confectioners, and mineral water manufacturers, of tea planters in Ceylon, and of sugar growers in the West Indies and British Guiana, so long as it was possible, with great care and considerable pecuniary risk and with relates on taxes, to bolster up à necessarily restricted industry in this country. Surely that was not a very comprehensive view to take of the needs of the Empire. If this industry was to be absolutely dependent upon a rebate of taxes, the noble lord was engaged on a forlorn hope. He had received little encouragement either from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seemed to him that the noble earl's only hope was to possess his soul in patience until those benches were occupied by a Labour Government. Intil then he doubted whether the noble lord would be in a position to wring from a reluctant Treasury the vast sums of money which, on his own showing, were indispensable to the successful cultivation of sugar beet in this country.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY said the only new argument which the noble lord had brought forward was that growers of sugar beet in this country would have opposition from the West Indies. He had received a circular, issued by the West India Committee, in which they stated that with stability of prices cane sugar could always be grown at a profit in fair competition with beet sugar, and they would be glad to see sugar beet
grown at a profit by British farmers. There was nothing in this proposal that could not be supported by the most extreme free-trader. All that they asked for was some guarantee that the existing state of affairs as regarded the Brussels Sugar Convention would continue. That Convention had inaugurated steadiness in the
28254
H