HC Deb 25 February 1932 vol 262 cc654-60
Sir S. CRIPPS

I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words: at prices which are reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description and". Sub-section (1) of the Clause lays down the matters which the advisory committee have to take into account when they are making representations to the Treasury. It sets out that when they recommend that where it appears to them that an additional duty ought to be charged in respect of goods of any class or description which are chargeable with the general ad valorem duty and which, in their opinion, are either articles of luxury or articles of a kind which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom. … the Committee may recommend.… additional duty. We are anxious that it should not really be a question of production in the United Kingdom, but production at a reasonable price, so that you cannot, as it were, use this provision to start some small industry in the United Kingdom which would never naturally come here, but which could only be fostered by some exorbitant price level and which would not only be the result of a 10 per cent. tariff. We feel that there should be some sort of indication given in the Clause to the advisory committee to limit their powers in cases where goods are likely to be produced within a reasonable time in the United Kingdom. I would point out that they must take into consideration, when thinking of that likelihood, the price at which those goods were likely to be sold when produced. Obviously, from the consumers' point of view it is a most important thing that there should not be introduced here a new industry which is unsuited to the country and which never can, even in the long run, produce goods at a reasonable and fair price compared with the imported goods of the same class or description. I do not think that there is anything in this which would hamper the Committee in their actions, but it would give them the guide the Government would wish them to have in considering the question of the setting up of new industries.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not think that the Amendment is likely to produce the effect which the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently has in mind. He suggests that it might be possible to use a 10 per cent, duty to foster an industry which is essentially unsuited to this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS

An additional duty. The Clause deals with the additional duty. I said an industry which could not be fostered by the ad valorem duty but which could be fostered by an additional duty.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I think that it is very unlikely that the advisory committee would recommend an additional duty if they thought that as a result of that duty the industry was likely to be charging unreasonable prices. I may say that if their prices became too unreasonable even the additional duty would not prevent the influx of foreign goods made in countries more suitable for their production, and that would, of course, prove its own corrective. I do not think that the committee are likely to try and foster industries essentially unsuited to this country, but if it were found, after the imposition of an additional duty, that unreasonable prices were in fact being charged, then the Commissioners could take them off again under the provisions of the Bill. We ought to have regard to the facts and not to speculation as to what is likely to happen in the future. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

Sir P. HARRIS

I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert the words "the cost of living."

I do not think that a very elaborate argument is needed to justify the insertion of these words. At present, the Advisory Committee is asked to have regard to the advisability of restricting imports and the interest generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those of trades and indus- tries which are consumers, but there is no instruction, or no words indicating that the committee should consider what, after all, is more important than anything else, namely, the cost of living. How important this is can be brought home to the House by reminding it of what happened during the discussion on meat. A very strong case was put up for a duty on meat in order to encourage production by stock-breeders in an industry which is going through a bad time, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted those arguments on the ground that he was considering the cost of living. The cost of living ought always to be in the mind of the committee. They may say that it is quite outside their scope and that it is their business to consider the question of imports, and the producers and the users of raw material. It would be a great assurance to the general public and to the consumers to know that when the committee are considering applications for protection they had an instruction from the House of Commons always to bear in mind the cost of living. If the index figure of the cost of living began to rise, such an instruction would have an influence upon the committee.

Mr. McKEAG

I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT

Surely, the cost of living is a matter of high policy for the Government and this House to consider. The recommendations of the committee must, first of all, be accepted by the Government and brought forward by the Government to this House. The hon. Member, two days ago, twitted me with desiring to remove matters from the purview of the House, but he himself is doing it in this Amendment. The committee has to make technical recommendations, but the duty of drawing up It policy for the protection of this country cannot be taken away from this House, and all considerations in regard to the cost of living are properly considered here in the great Consumers' Council of the Kingdom. This is the body which ought to consider the question, and on those grounds I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. MANGER

I am sorry that the Government do not seem to be able to accept the Amendment, because in the present state of the country and of public opinion, I do not think that we can be too careful in putting in every safeguard in connection with the cost of living. There are large numbers of people who are suffering the greatest hardship through the administration of the means test—a test which is called "the meals test" in my constituency. If there is the slightest chance of their having to pay more as a result of taxes which are put upon them they will be placed in a position of great. hardship and cruelty. It would be a most cruel thing to do, and I urge the Government, while they do not desire to do anything of the kind, to make things doubly sure by permitting a guide to the advisory committee of this kind to be put into the Bill.

Mr. LEWIS

Hon. Members supporting the Amendment overlook the fact that they are really protecting the Government from the necessity of justifying their policy in regard to the cost of living. If the Amendment were carried, the Government would be in a position of saying that it was a thing which could not increase the cost of living and that it had been carefully investigated by the tribunal appointed for the purpose. I submit that on those grounds at least the hon. Members ought not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. LAWSON

I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, after the word "interests," to insert the words: primarily of wage-earners both as producers and consumers, and the interests. The House will notice that the Subsection gives advice to the effect that the Committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry. The Amendment provides that the interests primarily of wage-earners both as producers and consumers shall also be taken into account. There is a danger that among the industries that will take advantage of these import duties there will be inefficient ones. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told certain bodies that there was a danger of that, and many hon. Members have pointed out that fact. It is well known that some of the inefficient industries pay very poor wages. The conditions are so poor in some of these industries that many of the workers are not organised to defend themselves, and the trade boards have been set up to deal with those particular conditions. I remember one particular industry which, if it had been existing now, would have come under these duties for protection on the ground that they could not carry on, but the trade board system actually made that industry one of the best in the country, whilst doing something to organise the workers.

It is a very small thing to ask this House to make sure that the interests of the workers are protected, when other interests are being protected. One of the arguments that have been used by supporters of the Government has been that the Bill will do something towards giving good wages. I do not admit that. Those who have practical experience of industry know very well that unless the trade unions and the trade boards do something definitely to protect the workers, they will not be protected under this Measure, and they will not be assured of their wages. As it is admitted that industries should be efficient and pay decent wages, I do not see how the Government can refuse to accept our Amendment, which lays it down quite clearly that the interests of the workers shall he considered. We ask that they shall be considered both as producers and consumers, because they will have to pay more as a result of the import duties for the goods which they consume. Therefore, it is the more imperative that the workers in those particular industries should have consideration in that respect.

We have been told that these matters will receive consideration. If they are to receive consideration, we say that the only guarantee to the people concerned is to lay that condition down in the Bill, very definitely. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will give some satisfaction to the workers on this point. The great body of wage earners in general also need consideration as consumers, and if the Government are serious about these matters they will see that they receive consideration. If the Government do not accept the Amendment, it must be regarded as quite clear that they are definitely putting the Bill through in the interests of trade and industry and the employers, without regard to the workers as producers and consumers.

Mr. McENTEE

I beg to second the Amendment. I do so formally in order to save time.

Major ELLIOT

This seems to be an attempt, and not a very successful attempt, to define the words "national interests." This attempt to personify trade and industry and to separate trade and industry from the wage earners and producers, will not stand the test of examination. What is trade and industry if it is not the wage earners as producers and consumers who are engaged in it? Anyone who examines the position of trade and industry does not look simply at the necessity of producing so many articles. One has to consider also the people who are to buy the articles and the people who are making the articles. You cannot separate the national interests from the interests of the wage earners. The two things are practically speaking co-terminal. How does the hon. Member imagine that he is safeguarding the position of the wage earners by putting a phrase into a Bill which is to be administered by a body of people who, he thinks, have not the interests of the wage earners at heart? Are a few words in an Act of Parliament going to alter the views of such a body, if they are of that type? It is the whole spirit of the administration which will determine the action that is taken. The words which the hon. Member seeks to insert would have no more effect than a cobweb, if these people were set up to crush and beat down the wage earners as producers and consumers.

The arguments which I addressed to hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House apply with even more force in this case. The tribunal before which the masses of the people of this country bring their case, is this House and not any committee. The Government are the body who bring recommendations before the House and stand responsible for them until they have been sanctioned by the House. Then the House stands responsible for them, and it is impossible for the House to get rid of its responsibility and to put it on to the shoulders of a committee. It would be altogether wrong for the Advisory Committee to be the body which is to be the guardian of the wage earners of this country. My hon. Friend opposite and his colleagues are the guardians of the wage earners from their point of view and we are the guardians of the wage earners from our point of view. This particular committee is for the purpose of giving technical advice and of taking all things into consideration as far as it can, but the final judge on these matters is this House, and the final decision will be taken upon the Floor of this House. Words such as are suggested in the Amendment will not be of the slightest advantage to the wage earners.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

We have no desire to prolong the Debate, but I would say that the arguments used by the Financial Secretary have been very thin. The interests of the workers as producers and consumers must be safeguarded and we are anxious to safeguard them in the terms of a Bill which, from the Financial Secretary's point of view, is primarily introduced in the interests of trade and business generally. It is quite true, as he says, that we are the guardians of the poor and of the workers—

Major ELLIOT

Do not let the hon. Member be under any misapprehension in regard to a suggestion of that kind. He is the guardian of the poor in his constituency and is responsible to them, and I am the guardian of the poor in my constituency and am responsible to them.

Mr. WILLIAMS

That may be true, but if in this House we pass a Bill to consolidate the position of trade and the interests of the employers, without any relation to the workers as workers, or wages as wages, it is clear that a very vital part of our industrial organism is being ignored. We disagree entirely with the case which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but, in the interests of preserving the time of the House, we do not propose to go to a Division.

Amendment negatived.