CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and, Construction). (Hansard, 14 September 1914)

§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
(indistinctly heard): I think this is an opportunity for the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to answer a little more fully a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts). It is a case in which a foreign enterprise or agency has been planted on our territory in time of peace for the purpose of undercutting our manufacturers. It is obvious that in time of peace there must always be a large proportion of our workers who look with disfavour upon that kind of foreign enterprise. How much more likely is that to be the case in the wholly artificial state 831 of affairs produced by war, when this already artificial extension of foreign enterprise is enabled to enhance and accentuate its injurious operations upon the employment of our own people! In such circumstances our own people are less able to bear the depreciation of the value of their labour, and the foreign enterprise is likely to be more reckless in undercutting than it would be under other circumstances. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a case for consideration.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)
The case put by the right hon. Gentleman I take to be one that is not dealt with, as he thinks, under this Bill. It is the case of a pure agency—not producing in this country, but simply acting as an agency.

§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
And producing.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
In that case I think this Bill does give us power to inspect and, if necessary, to control. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had in view the case of an undercutting agency. Clause 3 deals with a kind of industry where there is no such thing as undercutting—a case in which we need to keep the trade going because our own industries do not cover it. The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division (Mr. S. Roberts) apparently has in view ordinary trade competition.

§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
It may be both. It does not appear from the correspondence.

§ Mr. ROBERTSON
There are two categories—production, which is covered by the Bill, and agencies for goods which have been previously imported. Under the law as it stands, and under the Proclamations, such an agency cannot carry on any transactions because foreign capital is held up. If the right hon. Gentleman requires a provision prohibiting the sale of goods from abroad, I do not see how we can undertake to make the necessary requisition. I am unable to see how we can usefully take any further steps than those which have been taken in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman has in view any specific cases in which it is proposed that there should be some- 832 thing more than a merely protective interference, I can only say that the matter will be considered, but I do not feel disposed to promise that such an interference shall take place. The goods are here, and merely to stop their sale because they originally came from a foreign source would be to enter upon quite anew line of interference. The law, as we shall now have it, will prevent any remittances being made for those goods, and so long as you prevent such remittances being made, you have surely done all that it concerns the State to do in the particular circumstances.

§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
I shall be glad to make further inquiries, and let the hon. Gentleman know how the matter stands.