PLATE GLASS. (Hansard, 30 September 1915)

§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
In the discussion on the last Resolution we were able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the injustice of that tax. If it is unfair to place a tax on hats, it is a much greater injustice, in my opinion, to place a tax on the free importation of plate glass. I am given to understand, and I am speaking on good authority, that we have in this 1082 country only one manufacturer of plate glass, who at the present time has a complete monopoly in this article, which is one of great service to the commercial community. This is not?—recalling the Colonial Secretary's description last night—a sumptuary tax; it is an absolute necessity. The old tax upon plate glass was abolished as far back as 1853 and we have not had any reimposition of this tax until now. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to exact this tax from the community. I am given to understand that our imports of plate glass come principally from Belgium. In 1913 our imports of plate glass amounted to £299,000; in 1914 they were reduced to £206,000; and in 1915 they are down to £128,000. The effect of the reduced imports of plate glass, has led to a very considerable rise in the price since the War broke out.
If you take sheet glass, which is not supposed to be touched by this Resolution, it has gone up, I believe, by 100 per cen. Those of us who have been engaged in business, and who live in towns, know that all the shopkeepers, in the interests of their business, use plate glass for their windows, and in some cases they have almost a quarter of a mile of plate glass put into their premises. If a smash should occur, through air raids, such as we have had in London, an enormous cost is involved in the case of business men, especially when they have to pay the increased price for plate glass, which is due to the outbreak of the War. I know it may be argued that the plate glass is insured; but if tradesmen are to be compelled to pay this tax, which it is sought to impose, they will be bound, in addition, to also pay the increased cost of insurance, because the loss to the insurance companies, in my opinion, must be enormous. Upon these grounds I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will follow the example which he set in regard to the last Resolution, on which he met the appeal which was made to him from all parts of the House, and that he will not press this tax.

§ Sir WILLIAM PEARCE
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to what is said in this Debate, because in many instances plate glass is really a raw material. I am told by manufacturers concerned that, if the duty is put on, there will not be sufficient plate glass in this country to meet full requirements. They are extremely anxious about this matter, because they say their businesses will be greatly disturbed. They pointed out that in the 1083 furniture trade particularly a good deal of plate glass and bevelled glass is used; and they further point out that furniture made in Germany is largely exported to South America and other countries, and they are afraid that this tax might do serious injury to the furniture trade of this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see fit to make a concession in regard to this particular duty.

§ Sir CHARLES HENRY
I am at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman has included plate glass in his Budget. The only reason that I can conceive is that he thought plate glass was an article which would be difficult to smuggle and so evade the Customs officers. I am convinced that the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends must weigh with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would point out that the recent air raids, and which are likely to be repeated, may lead to plate glass being required in far larger quantities than hitherto. I submit that there is ample evidence why this tax should not be imposed.

§ Mr. McKENNA
The effect of this tax has been forcibly brought to my mind both by what hon. Members have said here on this occasion and by the representations of the gentleman who is described as a monopolist in this trade. I think he was formerly a Member of this House, and is well known as a Tariff Reformer. He, however, so little regards this tax as a tariff tax, that, as a supposed monopolist, he is opposed to it. He has given precisely the same business reasons that have been brought to my attention to-day. In these circumstances, when I find that these objections to the tax, pure business objections, are made both by the only manufacturer in this country and by hon. Members who are looking at the trade from the outside, I feel that it is a case in which it is my duty to recommend to the House to disagree with the Resolution.