§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
§ Mr. HOLTThis is a vote which is to give assistance to the dye-making industry. I think we should have some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade. It is marked on the Paper as being a new service; therefore it has apparently nothing whatever to do with the scheme of British Dyes which has already passed this House. The explanation tells us that this is only part of a total Vote of £2,000,000. This is the first instalment of a very big scheme. This money, we are told, is to be spent in the following ways: £1,250,000 are to be loaned, but it does not say to whom. That is a point on which the President of the Board of Trade should give us a full and ample statement. We must know who are to receive these very large loans, which I should imagine are being offered on very favourable terms. We are told that they are to get credit for twenty years. People do not get credit for twenty years without giving some sort of security. I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will give us information as to the character of the security which we are going to have for these advances. We are also told that £600,000 are to be paid in contributions in aid of extension of plant and buildings. That, I suppose, means a gift. I should like to know who are the persons who are to receive this very large gift of public money. We might also be informed what the public is going to receive in exchange for this gift of money. We are told that £150,000 are to be paid in Grants in aid of research. I do not know who are to get this. That, I have no doubt, will be explained. We ought to be told whether it is to be given to the manufacturers. 2098 [Mr. BOOTH: "Yes!"] There is a possible alternative, namely, universities or learned bodies. So far as the information given to us in this Vote is concerned, there is nothing to show that these Grants in aid of research are not to be given to learned institutions. I cannot help thinking that it would in itself be a more appropriate action to make Grants for research to learned institutions rather than to trading co-operations, which might use the research work as the foundation for a trading monopoly. On all these points I do not think it is possible for us to say anything much at present, and I do not propose to do so. Having brought these matters before the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, I would ask him if he will give us information on these points.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley)I am very glad to have this opportunity of giving a brief explanation of the reasons for this Supplementary Estimate. It is quite true that it represents a very large sum of money. I am very glad to have an opportunity of explaining the position as far as the dye industry in this country is concerned, and I trust I shall secure as a result of the explanation the unanimous support of the Committee. In so far as the dye industry is concerned, it may be truthfully described as one of the essential industries of the country. Therefore, because it is an essential industry, it must be treated in a very special manner if necessity arise. I am sure it is within the knowledge of the Committee what was the position of the dye industry in this country at the outbreak of war. I think it would be well within the truth to say that this country was practically entirely dependent upon Germany for the supply of necessary dyes used in this country. That position, in so far as the industry itself is concerned, is important enough, but it goes far beyond that. The enormous number of industries of vast magnitude depending upon dyes for their existence makes it vital that the dye industry should be established in this country competently, not only to meet the needs of those who require dyes in this country, but perhaps more competently to take its place in the world of trade in respect of this particular product.
At the outbreak of the War the industry in this country was not extinct, but nearly extinct. We were at that time almost entirely dependent upon Germany for the 2099 dyes that were required. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), my predecessor at the Board of Trade, recognising the importance of this industry, immediately took steps, very wisely, to establish the industry in this country, so that it might be entirely independent of any foreign source of supply. The first step was to establish British Dyes, which was aided at that time by funds from the Government, and established with the object of making this industry a great national industry, not national in the sense that it was controlled by the Government, but national in the sense that it would be competent to meet our demands. For that purpose the Government granted to that undertaking very considerable assistance at that time. As a result of the steps taken a very considerable advance has been made in the manufacture of dyes in this country. British Dyes, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) has been of very great assistance in advancing the industry in this country. It is true that British Dyes has been handicapped—perhaps that is the best word to use—because of the demands which have been made by the Ministry of Munitions for explosives, which, at that time, had to take a preeminent place The fact that the resources of British Dyes have been used for explosive purposes has, perhaps, to that extent, impeded the development of the undertaking along the lines which my right hon. Friend had in mind when he undertook the establishment of it. The mere fact that it was used for the purpose of explosives proves the importance of this industry to this country, not only as an industry essential in times of peace, but as an industry equally essential in times of war.
What I have said about British Dyes making great advances is also true of other undertakings in the country, which were operating upon a very small scale at the outbreak of war. Messrs. Levenstein, and also, I think, the British Alizarine Company, have made very considerable progress. Perhaps they may have measured their progress more rapidly than that of British Dyes, because they have, I think, almost entirely been free from the need of supplying explosives to the Government. Both these undertakings have made progress, and perhaps one might say great progress, when one con- 2100 siders the limit of time they have had in which to develop themselves, the limited facilities, the limited amount of material, and the limited number of experts at their disposal. Taking those circumstances into consideration I think it would be true to say that they have made great progress. Still, the goal which my right hon. Friend had in mind, to establish in this country the industry so that it would be independent of supplies from foreign sources, and in particular from Germany, has not yet been accomplished. That is the goal that we will have in front of us—a goal which, I am advised by those competent to speak on this matter, that if we adopt certain methods can be accomplished within a reasonable time. We recognise the vast importance of this industry, and the imperative need for establishing it so that, if possible, when we come to discuss peace terms with Germany, this particular trump card of being able to say that this country depends upon Germany for its dyes will not be allowed to remain in Germany's hands.
Time is the essence of the whole problem, and it is because we have so little time, as I trust we have so little time, in which to make the necessary advance in this industry that we have found it necessary to take special steps of a financial character and otherwise, to aid this industry to make more rapid progress than would otherwise be the case. It is not necessary for me to remind the Committee that the amount of materials at our disposal for extension of buildings and plant is very limited, and the numbers of trained chemists and the trained staff necessary for this work are also limited. It is vitally important that we should exercise the greatest care in the use of the limited materials and trained staff available for the purpose, and it is for that reason that I have, in consultation with different interests, come to the conclusion that it is in the national interests that there should be some fusion of interests, certainly with the more important undertakings involved in this enterprise. But that in itself is not sufficient. Those who are engaged in this industry have to consider the commercial aspect of the problem. That cannot be ignored entirely. Perhaps what may be described as the commoner range of dyes is adequately met by our own manufacture, but the more intricate colours, involving considerable plant and a great deal of research and a lot of patience, are matters still in the future. We have not 2101 yet succeeded in being able to say that, taking the dye situation as a whole, our position is anything like satisfactory. In order that this position may be secured within a reasonalbe time, as I am advised, and as I believe, possible, it is not only necessary to secure the best possible use of the material and labour that is there, but it is also necessary we should make extensions to existing plants and that we should also give them aid, where necessary, in their research work. As I have said before, time is the essence of this problem. We have got to hurry; we must make haste if we are going to reach our goal. Therefore the Government propose, inasmuch as this is an essential industry, that some assistance should be given to these undertakings where extensions of their buildings and plant are necessary. This assistance takes, in so far as that aspect of the problem is concerned, two forms. One is in the nature of a loan; and there the security, of course, would be upon the undertaking, and at a fair rate of interest. The other would be in the form of assistance which is not recoverable, and that is by making a contribution towards the cost of these extensions. The reason why that is proposed is owing to the very high cost of extensions at this time and to the natural reluctance of those engaged in this industry to make these extensions without assistance; and, following the principle which has been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions where extensions of work on Government account are necessary, we propose to give some assistance towards the cost of these extensions, and, as I have said, that will not be a recoverable sum. Here, again, it is because of the imperative need of making these extensions as quickly as possible during the War, and not waiting until the War is ended, that we feel justified in asking the Committee to agree that the Government is warranted in giving this form of assistance.
The third form is by making a contribution in aid of research. I hope the field of research will be very wide, that it will not necessarily be confined to manufacturers alone, and that our institutions of learning will adopt the practice that exists in Germany, whereby these thousand and one institutions, so far as this problem is concerned, practically constitute themselves part of the great combines which deal in dyes in Germany. These combines, by encouraging these institutions in the research work connected with dyes, 2102 and by offering substantial rewards, obviously enormously widen the field of men competent to deal with this research work. It is not proposed that it should be necessarily limited to manufacturers. I trust the field will be wide, thereby securing great benefits to these institutions and to the country as a whole. That is the position as regards the dye industry. We have been given every assurance by those best competent to advise us on this matter that it is possible, and that there is no reason why, within a reasonable time, we should not be able to make the necessary progress which would secure this country being quite independent of any sources of supply, in particular from Germany. It is because we recognise that fact that we have suggested that this sort of aid should be given to these industries during the War. There is, perhaps, one other point which I may mention, so that I shall then have given to the Committee the whole of our programme in respect to dyes.
§ Mr. HOLTMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give me the names? I asked him specially if he would give the names of the people who will get this money. Will he do so?
§ Sir A. STANLEYI had better complete what I was going to say. I was going on to say, so that Members might have complete knowledge of our programme, we are proposing that for a period of ten years after the War imports of dye-stuffs into this country shall be prohibited except by licence. There is an obvious reason for this. If it is necessary that the dye industry shall be established, so that it should be quite independent of any foreign source of supply, then I suggest it is important that the industry should not be in a position to be assailed during its infant years by the attempt which these great German combinations are certain to make to re-establish their supremacy in this country, such as they had before the War, and completely destroy all we have done during the War. With regard to the use to which this money will be put—that is, those who will be in receipt of this benefit—I can only put it in this way, those who are now engaged in the industry in this country will be in a position to make application for relief, and in the consideration of these applications and the distribution of the funds placed at our disposal, we propose that a representative committee shall 2103 be appointed—a Committee representative of users and manufacturers, with an independent chairman appointed by the Board of Trade——
§ Sir A. STANLEYEqual numbers, and who will advise the Board of Trade with respect to any applications that may be made for assistance by the Government? I trust, with this explanation, the Committee will accept this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Sir W. ESSEXI have listened with a good deal of pleasure and some satisfaction to the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this Estimate. I hope I shall not be considered unsympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman in his presentation of the case if I suggest that the very heavy and onerous duties falling upon him in this House, in addition to the heavy burdens he has to carry in his great office, may possibly be urged in extenuation of the somewhat limited and technical illustration he has given of the matter he has brought before us to-night. Will he forgive me for saying it would have been a great help if he could have given some more definite evidence that this steady bolstering up with British capital of one particular industry in the country, deserving as it is—I am not offering any objection to it, but it does call for a certain amount of detail, supported by a quotation of facts such as would not in any sense be helpful to our enemy competitors, but such as would bear witness to the successive steps his Department has taken towards the goal which his sanguine expectation looks forward to reaching in the next, how long shall we say, six months? I should like to have known, and I hope the absence of that information is not due to its non-existence, that the work, which is very considerable, of these "dry nursed"—I am not using the term offensively—undertakings, in their output and their efficiency, has, so far as it goes, given a measure of satisfaction to the people whom they affect to supply.
There can be very little doubt that Read, Holliday and Company, and Levinstein, and the rest of them prior to the Government taking them up, were making dyes which had a market value and a certain measure of success. But the country has a right to know, after the considerable 2104 period that has elapsed and the large amount of public money devoted to these undertakings, whether any great progress has been made in adding considerably to the bulk of those dyestuffs which these firms in the past had successfully produced. I do not know what are the root dyes, or what is the exact number of valuable recipes which were held by various German firms. If my memory serves me aright, there were about something like 2,000 of these recipes, and we had at the beginning of the War only about 500 of these recipes which we were able to manufacture; but the other 1,500 were not anything like the same high average usefulness. At the same time, those of us who are interested in our products, which depend for their perfectibility upon the fine and complete realisation of top tones in colour, have always noticed that they have of late, owing to the absence of some of these fine tinctorial products which they have been accustomed to use, and which came from Germany and, of course, Switzerland, lacked the essential finish. We want to know how far we are on the road to supplying ourselves with the dyes which will give us that top note, that pinnacle of excellence in tinctorial work. We have not had the slightest information on that, nor as to how many recipes the research which has been done has added to our list. It may be said that it would be inadvisable to give this information in a place like this, which is the sounding board of the whole world; but something might have been done by pointing out some evidence of increasing satisfaction on the part of customers to show that you are marching steadily along the path which you had set out for yourself.
I did like one note in the President's speech. That was the cheery and almost juvenile optimism with which he expressed the opinion that sooner or later—and no doubt sooner rather than later—we should be quite independent of foreign products. The fight hon. Gentleman nods his head in approval. It is nice to be young and optimistic. I only wish, from the experience that I have got in these matters, that I felt the same confidence, and if that were so it would not be £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 which I would be ready to vote to-night, but I would not bother about even £10,000,000, because your business is bound up, as the President pointed out, not only with the important question of tinctorial products, but also with that of 2105 drugs. That he cannot deal with here, but it is a closely allied industry, and it may very well be that the Board of Trade would be able to reduce the cost by keeping that still more in mind, and also by encouraging analytical chemists by bonuses on further discoveries. Though these factories and chemists may co-operate in the production of war material, God send soon the time when we shall not have to use public money for those purposes, but at the present time it is of prime importance, and I am glad to know that so much has been done. I would ask the President to make himself in the allocation of money for the support of chemical research to consider and balance the expenditure as between a bonus system for all analytical chemists and sundry as well as for university and other specialised training to produce a large number of chemists in this country.
What I have in mind is this: The prizes of applied chemistry have for many years past been almost wholly reserved to chemists employed either as shareholders, managers, directors or what not of industrial undertakings, and there were very few experts on chemical research who were used as referees or revisers, as this has not been a productive or very remunerative calling. I have never been able to discover that the Board of Trade have thought it worth while to offer bonuses or encouragement in this direction in order that there might be a production of new recipes. Say that there is a chemist engaged in some particular research work for a gigantic firm of chemical manufacturers, that industry must have his first, second, and third care. At the same time he may very easily here and there come across things which would be useful to the Board of Trade in these industries which it is patronising, and you will never get the advantage of that unless the man happens to be a man of unusual public spirit, because otherwise he will not think it worth while to trouble you with what he has discovered. But if you have a scheme of bonuses in many eases the man would be able to pick up things which would be useful, and I sincerely hope that we may be able to do something along these lines. I do not think that this application of a ten years' restriction is necessary. Unless within a much shorter time than ten years our industry can stand firmly alone, we shall not be throwing the £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 into the bottomless pit, but we 2106 shall have had to add many millions more in the interval. A great deal of care and thought has been given to this matter. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will be glad to welcome all suggestions of a helpful character, and from the bottom of my heart, as a humble Member of this House, I do sincerely hope that the commercial organisation of these industries, which have been too long under the enemy whip, the production of drugs and of tinctorial products, may result in the great development of industries which, after all, had a beginning in this country. The past position has been a matter of profound regret to me for many years, and I hope that we are on the high road now at last to recover the ground which we have lost, and bring about a more creditable and happier state of things in our commercial undertakings.
Colonel COLLINSI listened carefully to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He has not given us sufficient information to enable us to pass this Supplementary Estimate to-night. The only information which we have had was contained in the White Paper received from the Vote Office yesterday, and this evening we are asked to sanction the further sum of £1,000,000 to British Dyes. There is no indication in the White Paper that this Supplementary Estimate refers to British Dyes, and this evening for the first time we are asked to vote this £1,000,000 to this particular company.
§ Sir A. STANLEYMay I say, by way of explanation, that this £1,000,000 is not to be used in the interest of any one undertaking, but is to be used in the interests of those undertakings existing in the country now, which are considerably more than British Dyes. We do not for a moment propose that this £1,000,000, or anything like it, should be used exclusively for the benefit of British Dyes.
Colonel COLLINSI am sorry if I have have misrepresented the position taken up by the President of the Board of Trade: but the explanation which he has offered is a further reason why the Government should not ask us this evening to pass this Supplementary Estimate. The first question which I desire to ask is, How much of this money is to be allotted to British Dyes—can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on that point? The right hon. Gentleman is unable to furnish the House with any information. 2107 Much public money is to be allowed to the British dyers, and it is an extraordinary position that the Government take up. In the Debate of two years ago this House was assured, when asked to vote for £1,000,000 for this company, that the public at that time would be asked for £1,000,000 also; and the House was also assured that if more money were required from the British Government, for every £100 voted by this House, the British dyers and the public outside would be asked for £400. For every £1 of public money the public outside were to subscribe £4. But this evening the President of the Board of Trade tells us that he is unable to say how much money is to be allotted to the British dyers, and we are unable to judge whether the Government are carrying out the obligation which the Government of that day entered into with this House when they gave us the assurance that in future if further capital were required, further large sums of private money would be forthcoming at the same time that any public money was Asked from the Government. I think the position is very unsatisfactory. Here we are asked this evening for a sum of £1,000,000, and we are given little or no information as to how the money is to be spent. We are told that £1,250,000 is to be lent to this company at 5 per cent., or not less than 5per cent., and it is to be repayable in twenty years. In other words, these companies need not repay for twenty years a single penny of this money. They may get this money for twenty years, and not pay a single penny in that time. Surely they should be asked to repay a certain fixed sum every year.
Then they are also to receive the contribution of £600,000 in aid of plant and buildings. Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us what percentage that £600,000 is of the total cost of the buildings? We are asked to devote £600,000 as a Grant in aid of extensions and buildings, and this House is not given any information as to whether that sum represents the whole cost of the buildings, three-quarters of the cost, half the cost, or a quarter of the cost. Surely it is trifling with the House of Commons to come here and ask for these large sums of money, and not give us that assurance. This is public money; this is coming from the taxpayers of the country. I have already said that when this scheme was originally instituted the taxpayers were 2108 given to understand that if further public money was lent to these companies, large sums would be lent by outside shareholders. The result of this granting of £1,250,000 will be to largely increase the interest of the original shareholder. We are by our action this evening increasing the value of the shares which were taken up by the original shareholders two years ago. Let us do that, at any rate, with our eyes open. Let us realise that by our action this evening we are placing large sums of public money in the pockets of private individuals. That is the result of the action of the Government. I am not speaking against the general question of the State helping the dye industry. It was generally agreed in this House that steps should be taken to manufacture dyes in this country. The capital of the company two years ago was £2,000,000. This evening we are going to Grant them another £1,250,000; that is £3,250,000. How much money is really required to develop the dye industry in this country?
§ Sir WATSON RUTHERFORDForty millions.
Colonel COLLINSMight I ask my right hon. Friend if he can tell us what the total value of the imports of dye into this country was before the War? I have the figures here, and the total value of imports of dyes into this country before the War were £2,250,000 a year. My hon. Friend says £40,000,000 is required, but as a business man I would not ask this House to believe that to produce £2,250,000 each year would require a capital of £40,000,000. That is a statement which, as a business man, I can hardly accept. I am not a manufacturer of dyes—I know nothing about it—but I am approaching the subject from the point of view of the public interest. I learn that the value of the dyes imported into this country was £2,250,000.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDIn this country alone?
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDThat is leaving the Colonies out.
Colonel COLLINSI am speaking of the value of the dyes imported into this country, and I am trying to find out what capital is required to produce 2¼ millions' worth each year?
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDIt is an absurd question.
Colonel COLLINSIt is a question which must have been in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. He must have applied his mind to that subject. How can he come to this House and ask for public money, so as to secure that dyes are manufactured in this country in the future sufficient to supply our needs, unless he has, at the same time, prepared some estimate showing the capital required to produce the necessary dyes. Surely that is a self-evident proposition. There must be somewhere in the office of the President of the Board of Trade some such statement as I am trying to obtain. I suggest that we should have further information from the Government before this Supplementary Vote is passed this evening. For the first time, we have been told this evening, that ten years after the War the import of dyes is to be restricted, and that imports are only to take place under licence. That is conferring a great benefit on the original shareholders of this company. I am not arguing whether it is a sound step to take or not. I say it is a step depending upon the action of the Government. Those who have put their money into this company in the past are receiving a very large sum voted indirectly by the Government. Not only are they going to receive 1¼ millions of public money, or rather £1,000,000 this year, but they are going to receive protection for ten years. Surely the public has an interest in this matter. Here are we, in the House of Commons, conferring this big financial privilege on these shareholders. We who represent the taxpayers, we who represent the public, are required to find this money, and on behalf of the taxpayer, and on behalf of the public of this country, I say that we are entitled to demand from the Government that if they grant big concessions to these companies, they should, in return, demand that a certain limit should be fixed, and a return paid on the capital sunk in these companies.
If we are to grant these privileges to these particular people, we should demand, and we will insist upon demanding, that the return on capital of profits to the shareholders will be limited and restricted. What right has the President of the Board of Trade to grant these privileges to these people? Why take these particular men, and grant them this new privilege? What reason is there why these men should be singled 2110 out by the Government? Why should they receive this privilege while at the same time one-man businesses are being closed by the hundred, and no public money is forthcoming for these poor men? I do not know a single individual amongst these people, but they are powerful men, and if we grant this privilege to them we are entitled to demand some return from them, and by the Rules of the House we are unable to move any Amendment which would secure the result I have in view. Our only course is to oppose the Supplementary Estimate at every stage, and, unless I can have some assurance or explanation from the Government, I say that they are breaking faith with the public on this subject. If my information be correct—and here I go back to my first point—this House was given a definite understanding that, when further public money was granted for making dyes, for every £1 lent by the Government in future £4 would be lent by outside shareholders. If that statement be correct, the Government are breaking a distinct pledge given to this House and to the public. All of us agree that the dye industry should be developed, but I take exception to the dye industry being developed with Government money, and the profits being disbursed into the pockets of private shareholders. On these broad grounds, when the question is put later on I will divide the House on the subject, and I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will oppose this Supplementary Estimate and record a vote against the Government, asking for public money, while at the same time not taking steps to secure that private interests will not benefit unduly.
§ Mr. DILLONThe form of this Estimate is certainly an amazing illustration of the looseness which has invaded the voting of public money in this House. I have been a very long time in the House of Commons, and until quite recently to bring in an Estimate proposing to grant enormous sums of public money to private enterprises was absolutely unheard of, and I venture to say that it is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent to set. I know perfectly well how strong the grounds are for claiming that something exceptional should be done to develop the dye industry in this country, but there are other industries which are equally important, or very nearly so, which have been monopolised by Germany and other countries, and which also require to be developed. There 2111 are the sugar industry, the glass industry, and the drug industry. The loss of this last-named industry is perhaps greater in inconvenience to the public than the loss of the dye industry, because we can all go about in clothes badly dyed, or not dyed at all, much better than we can go about without drugs. There are various different industries, and when you once adopt this principle you open a door which is so wide that it is very hard at all to know where it will land you. But what I really rose to call attention to was this: I am not prepared to deny that it might be maintained that a Grant should be made for the improvement of the dye industry in this country, but anything like the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in justification of this Grant I have never listened to in my life, because certainly one would expect that in so unprecedented, so unusual, so strange, and, to the practice of this House, so foreign a system of granting public money, the President would have gone into the whole of the details, first of all, as to the results achieved by previous Grants to the British Dye Company. I do not at all gather that we have got an adequate account of what has been the result of the previous Grants which we have made, and we certainly were entitled to a most detailed and specific account of the results that have been achieved by the great outlay which has been incurred already, and also a justification on the part of the President of the Board of Trade of the methods by which that money was expended, and the plan which was adopted for its expenditure.
The Manchester firm which was mentioned, and was, I believe, one of the few successful private enterprises in this country making dyes and competing with the Germans before the War, might or might not have been given a share of the money that has been granted. I do not know whether they have or not, and I think we ought to know exactly what they obtained, whether they made an application, and, if they did not get a share of this money, why they did not: Although I know nothing about the dye industry, I should have imagined that the first thing to be done by the Government, if they really desired to encourage the industry in this country, would be to ascertain whether there were any firms who, before the War, had been able to compete 2112 successfully, or to compete at all, with the Germans in this industry, and on general business principles those firms ought unquestionably to have been made the main starting point of the new encouragement of the industry, because anyone would naturally say that the firms who had been able to compete with the Germans before the War, if such there be—and I understand there is at least one in Manchester—would be able to make far better use of any Grants or loans to extend their industry than any new enterprise started without any tradition or experience in the trade. I do not know whether it is true or not, but if it be true that the money was not distributed to these firms we should know from the President of the Board of Trade the grounds on which that course was taken.
In addition to that, we have this extraordinary fact: We are asked now to make a Grant of £1,000,000, which is to be lent at 5 per cent. for twenty years, to certain firms unspecified. Nothing is said as to how it is to be distributed. It may all go to the British Dyes, for all we know. The President said it is not all to go to the British Dyes, but we have no information as to where this money is going. We are to vote it in the dark, and not only is that large sum to be voted, but we are told now that this is only the
first instalment of a total sum of £2,000,000 to be provided for the purpose of assisting, by way of loans, Grants, etc., the expeditious development of the British dyemaking industry.There is not the slightest information given in the statement as to what is to become of all this money. £600,000 is an immense sum of public money to grant for the extention of plant and buildings, and really I think the claim of the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee that there should be some security that this money is not to go into the pockets of shareholders, and not to go for the purpose of increasing the value of capital invested in these companies, ought to be supported. It is a very dangerous practice that has how been introduced into the House of voting these large sums of money, and voting them really in the dark, without any explanation as to whether the money is to be distributed to aid private enterprises. The Reports of the Committee on Finance in this House have given such an appalling account of the methods in which public money has been distributed that we are 2113 entitled to be far more cautious and far more exacting in dealing with proposals of this kind than if those Reports were not before us. There is nothing more atrocious and terrible than the Reports that have been issued by that Committee, one of which has come out this morning, some of the details in which are really staggering. If the check on the expenditure of public money is reduced to such a chaos as is displayed in these Reports, all the more ought we to be cautious about voting such immense sums as we are asked now to vote for the benefit of private institutions, unless we are afforded some greater promise of strict economy, and more detailed information to the House of Commons than any that has been promised so far.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDI think the President of the Board of Trade ought to be congratulated by the Committee for bringing forward his Estimate in this way. To my mind—and I have been a constant critic of the financial methods of Government Departments for the last fifteen years in this House—this is an agreeable departure in the right direction. We have had over and over again, and I think we have had this Session on several occasions, transactions in the shape of contracts entered into committing our Government to the expenditure of very large sums of money, and, when the committal has actually been made, Supplementary or other Estimates have been brought in, and we have then been told that the Government has been committed to the expenditure. Here we have an illustration of exactly the contrary course. The President of the Board of Trade comes to us and he says, "We propose in connection with the dye industry to take the power to lay out over a period of three years the sum of £2,000,000, and we tell you quite candidly what we propose to do about it. We are going to make loans, and we are going in some cases to make Grants." I understand those Grants will be in small sums in aid of research and matters of that sort.
§ Mr. DILLON£600,000!
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDNo; £150,000. If the hon. Member, instead of contradicting me flatly across the floor of the House, would take the trouble to look at the Paper before him, he would see that he is wrong, and the interruption would be perfectly unnecessary. The Board of 2114 Trade come here, and tell us they want to have the power in connection with this important industry, which was entirely in the hands of the enemy up to the outbreak of the War, to make certain loans, which, I understand, would be Government security, would bear a rate of interest, would be repayable, and, in some cases, would be accompanied by a share of the profits in the undertakings, and that they want to have the power to deal with those people who are helping to secure for this country this important dye industry. I, for one, confess that it is a much honester and more satisfactory method of going about the business than if the President of the Board of Trade had come to us in the last week of the Sitting of the House before Christmas next and had said, "I have put so much into such concerns, so much more into certain other dye undertakings, and lent so much money to the British company. The contracts are made, and the money has been advanced, and you have practically no option but to turn the Government out or to ratify what they have done." That is the kind of way we have always been treated in the past, and I think it is much better to come to us and say, "Place at my disposal this sum of money. I have not agreed to advance part of it already to this, that, or the other undertaking, and therefore I cannot give you particulars of it, but I see that this important industry, which is one of the key industries of the world, in which we were at a great disadvantage when war broke out, should be assisted in a financial way, and you must have some confidence in the Board of Trade with regard to the way in which the money is laid out, and we are taking you into confidence in advance and telling you that is the plan which is intended to be followed." I was rather struck with the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins). He put a point with reference to the £2,500,000. It is perfectly true that that was the value of the dyes imported in this country before the War. That amount to-day, I suppose, would represent a value approximately of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. As I understand it, the institutions, the big concerns making these dyes, this industry in Germany was probably employing from £30,000,000 to £35,000,000 of capital when the War broke out. They were supplying the United States, neutral countries, all our present Allies, ourselves, 2115 and our Colonies with these dyes. I have been agreeably surprised in looking at this Estimate to see that the President of the Board of Trade not only thinks that he can be of substantial use to this industry and to its necessary development, if he gets placed at his disposal a sum not exceeding £1,000,000 this year and £1,000,000 next; but I was agreeably surprised to find that only £150,000 out of this £2,000,000 is apparently not going to be repayable. The rest of it, as the Paper shows, is to be in loans and in contributions in aid of extensions of plant, which, I gather, will be repaid. Only £150,000 will probably not be remunerative. But if that amount will help research, will help us to get one step nearer towards solving the great problems of this great industry, surely that £150,000 will help our young people.
§ Mr. PRINGLEPut them in the Army.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDThat is another question altogether.
§ Mr. PRINGLEBut it is so!
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDI am not talking about putting anybody into the Army. The hon. Member's unseemly interruption has nothing to do with the point.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt has.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDI was dealing with this question of loans, which is before the Committee.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAnd of research.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDReally, I think it is desirable I should be allowed to make my point. If the hon. Member wishes to address the House about recruiting and these other matters he has a perfect right to do so afterwards, if he be in Order. I was just finishing my observations, and I again would take the opportunity of congratulating the Board of Trade upon this new departure, upon this very desirable system being introduced into these public Departments when it is intended to spend money. Regarding the particular undertaking which has been assailed by the hon. Member for Greenock, we have a director whom the Government appointed on the benches opposite. If it had been a question as to how that concern was getting on—which it is not to-night—I am quite sure the hon. Member would have been able to give us an account of what that undertaking is doing and its progress in the 2116 country. That is not the point before the House. The point before us now is, are we going to trust the Board of Trade with the administration of £2,000,000 which, they tell us, they are going to lay out in loans at interest to help this key industry, which requires help and development, and which would find it difficult to get outside money during the War; that £150,000 is being used in Grants for purposes of enabling research to be undertaken. There is hardly a Department in the United Kingdom that is so badly off as research in all our industries. There is no endowment fund. We are alone as a country in that respect. Almost every other country endows research. Here is £150,000 given to help it. I congratulate the President upon asking for this money, and on the methods by which it is intended to be used.
Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid I cannot agree to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Particularly I must join issue with him on his financial estimates if they are on the basis of the Grants to which Parliament is now asked to make a contribution. Nor do I agree with hire that there is a new departure in the way this Supplementary Estimate is introduced by the Government. He says the Government are taking the House fully into their confidence beforehand, and apparently framing their schemes afterwards. If I remember rightly, in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade made at Manchester some little time ago, he informed his audience—as reported in the Manchester papers—that the Government had already decided on some such schemes as are now provided for out of the Grants which we are now asked to make. The difficulty the Committee is in to-night is that the Board of Trade are asking for the administration of these large sums of money—I presume they have Treasury sanction for the proposals which are being made—without giving the Committee full information of the terms on which the money is to be granted. I have some recollection of the first Grant which was made for the benefit of the dye industry of this country in the early stage of the War, when not only our supply of explosives but our munitions supplies were in question, and the shortage of dyes then was likely to leave both Lancashire and Yorkshire without sufficient raw material to carry on. In that case, however, the whole prospectus 2117 of British Dyes, Limited, was under discussion in the House. I think it was the Member for Pontefract who raised the whole question on two or three occasions, and we had full discussion in the House on every detail of the prospectus then issued.
§ Mr. PENNEFATHERI took part in that discussion. I then made my maiden speech. There was some discussion in detail, but we got very few answers to questions that we put.
Mr. RUNCIMANDoubtless my hon. Friend has a more vivid recollection of his maiden speech than I have; but certainly one distinction between the proposals made to-night and those made then is that the actual prospectus was before us, with the names of directors, the terms under which the Grants were to be made, the terms of repayment, proportions of capital expenditure, and so on. They were all made public by the discussions in the House.
§ Mr. PRINGLEOr else my hon. Friend opposite could not have made his maiden speech.
Mr. RUNCIMANI, for one, certainly do not object to Government assistance being given in the manufacture of dyes, provided it is understood that the Government and the country get a quid pro quo. It is difficult to say whether or not the country is getting a quid pro quo until the right hon. Gentleman has given us more information than he gave when he opened the discussion this evening. I take the second item, £600,000, as a contribution-in-aid of the extension of plant and buildings. What is that to be the proportion of? The right hon. Gentleman who sits behind the Front Bench said that he thought about £40,000,000 would be necessary for the proper production of dyes in this country.
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDI was giving the figures of what actually had been the capital of the concerns in Germany that were doing the business before the War. If we are to take the place of them, it will probably come to about the same amount of money—ultimately!
Mr. RUNCIMANThat is a very rough and ready way of forming a foundation for Government Grants. I say if the figure given by the hon. Gentleman is the figure in the minds of the Government, it is obvious that £600,000 is a very small 2118 percentage of the total expenditure; and it is perfectly obvious, too, that if they had no such figure in their mind they are not thinking of establishing such analogous establishments. They must have been thinking of something else. This amount is to be devoted to the putting up of plant and buildings, the total expenditure upon which we have no information. My right hon. Friend did not tell us what the total amount was likely to work out at. We ought to know what percentage of the capital that has to be spent on these extensions and plant is covered by this £600,000. The House is well aware that through the Munitions Department and the Admiralty and the Shipbuilding Department large advances have been made for extensions, but in every case, and certainly in the Shipbuilding Department, the advances are made under the general unvaried rule of 40 per cent. basis on the capital expenditure, which is the limit of the advances made. Does this sum represent 40 per cent. on the average or in particular cases? Is there to be more than 40 per cent. in some cases and less in others? That is an item of information to which the Committee is entitled before it gives the right hon. Gentleman complete and unlimited control of such a large sum of money. The loans amount to £1,250,000, and they are to remain under certain conditions mentioned in the footnote at
not less than 1 per cent. above bank rate, with a minimum of 5 per cent.But the Treasury stipulated in the advances made three years ago that for every £l that was put up by the State there should be £2, £3 or £4 put up by the companies, who will get the benefit of these advances, and therefore you are entitled to know what proportion the State advances bear to the money provided by the private concerns. The amount which is to be paid as Grants-in-Aid for research must have been made with some estimate to guide the Department, and can we be given some information as to the direction in which research is likely to proceed—whether it will be under the control of private companies or whether the work will be done by the modern universities or groups of universities, or the National Physical Laboratory. This information can be given without my right hon. Friend giving away anything that is likely to weaken him in his negotiations with concerns outside.2119 There has been no instance within my Parliamentary experience, which began about nineteen years ago, which I can recall where a sum of money anything like this has ever been granted to any Department on the strength of so little information being imparted to the House. The first instance I remember was under the Cunard Agreement, and that was safeguarded by an Act of Parliament in which the agreement appeared in the Schedule. It was debated in every stage, and I do not think there were any further advances made to any industry outside the area of munitions except that made to British Dyes. I have given some particulars of the safeguards provided by the House in order that full information might be imparted as to the financial position of these concerns. If there are further Grants of this kind we shall have to discuss them from time to time, but on this occasion the Board of Trade has asked for a large round sum of money to carry out their policy, and under these circumstances I think it is encumbent upon my right hon. Friend to give us an answer to the question which I have put.
I would like for my own part to say that I do not agree that we can treat the dye-making industry in the way we treat other industries, because it has a munition value almost peculiar to itself. It has already been shown how dyes and explosives are interlocked, and I believe I am saying what is correct when I say that at least three-fourths of the new plant for British Dyes has been devoted to the manufacture of explosives. Of course, that has been a disadvantage to the dye users, but a great advantage to the Munitions Department and the country as a whole. Not only explosives but drugs also are mixed up with the production of these aniline dyes. From our recent experience we know that we must treat the manufacture of explosives and drugs in the same category as being absolutely necessary for the defence of this country, and just as essential as the building of destroyers and battleships or the making of guns. But if that be a distinction which we must apply to this industry, we are bound to give to every Grant of financial assistance to those who make money out of it the most carefully prescribed safeguards, and the House must be well satisfied that this money cannot be used merely with the object of bolstering up the interests of private shareholders.
2120 The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to great Manchester firms which had been successful in the manufacture of dyes before the War. Those who know the facts about one firm in Manchester will agree with me when I say that my hon. Friend did not give a correct description of their prosperity. I may mention that Messrs. Levenstein's shares could be bought for a very few shillings before the War, and it is only the exclusion of enemy products which now makes those shares worth as many pounds as they were formerly worth shillings. I think we ought to know whether any Grants are going to be made to Messrs. Levenstein. They have not been bound to manufacture explosives, and I think we ought to be told whether they may be one of the firms to which these Grants should be made. Then there is the Patent Aniline Dye Company, which is more specialised in its products. Will they be receiving any advance? Will Major Holliday's firms in Huddersfield be receiving any advances under this proposal? If my right hon. Friend will give us an answer, as I have no doubt he can, I am sure the Committee would be much better disposed towards giving him a freer hand in the distribution of this money than it has ever given to any of his predecessors. These inquiries may cover a wide range, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will see that there is a general anxiety in many parts of the House to receive more information than the right hon. Gentleman was able to give when he first spoke.
§ Sir A. STANLEYMy right hon. Friend who has just sat down makes the same criticism in respect to this Estimate that has been made during the Debate by several hon. Members, and that is that I have failed to give to the Committee the necessary information so that they might be able to fairly consider whether this is a proper sum to be voted or not. I am sure hon. Members will quite realise that some of the information in my possession with regard to the position of the dye industry to-day should not be disclosed at this time. Information of a technical character, information which will disclose to the enemy what progress we have been able to make in the development of this industry during the War, should not be disclosed at this time, and I am sure, as far as that aspect of the problem is concerned, hon. Members will not press me to go too far. But there is other information which has been asked for which I am 2121 only too glad that Members of this Committee should have. I lay no claim, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Runciman) has done, to nineteen years' experience of this House. It so happens that my experience is measured by that exact number of months, and I cannot possibly say whether the form of this Estimate is unique, and whether or not the Board of Trade is asking this Committee to give it power with respect to special expenditure which goes beyond the ordinary procedure in matters of this kind.
It may be for that reason, before the Committee entrusts the Board of Trade with the expenditure of this large sum of money, that it is desired I should give them, as far as possible, not only the reasons why this sum should be expended, but also necessary details of the expenditure itself. The Committee, I am sure, will realise there are certain special reasons why it is impossible for me to give all the information asked for. One is, we have not yet involved ourselves in any of this expenditure; it will all arise in the future. We desire that this industry should be placed on a secure foundation, and in order to do that we feel there is a certain amount of money required, money which perhaps the ordinary investor would not be prepared to provide. I am afraid I cannot associate myself with the suggestion that we are launching upon an adventure which may eventually involve us in something approaching £40,000,000. That is rather far from my mind, and something much more modest than that will, I think, be found adequate to meet the necessities of the case. In so far as the Estimate is concerned, I propose to deal with the loan first of all. We are proposing that certain loans should be made not to any one particular person but to any person or firm in the country who can, if this loan is granted, be of assistance to the country in the establishment of this dye industry on a broader and more secure foundation. It might be that the firm would not be in a position to secure the money on, perhaps, the same favourable terms as the Government itself would be prepared to give. But if we do involve ourselves in any loan, we expect something in return for it. First of all, there must be adequate security for the money lent. But, beyond that, there will be an undertaking on the part of the firm that during the time this loan is in existence a limit shall 2122 be placed on the profits which may be available for the purposes of dividend—on the amount of money which may be paid out to the shareholders. That amount will be limited so long as this loan is outstanding. The hon. and gallant Member for Greenock quite rightly raised that point, and I trust he will be satisfied with the explanation I have given.
Colonel COLLINSWhat rate of dividend will the Government propose to allow these firms to pay to their shareholders? Is it to be limited to 6 per cent.?
§ Sir A. STANLEYI do not know that I can at this time definitely state how much they will be allowed to pay. "British Dyes," if I remember rightly, is already limited to the rate of dividend it may pay. Certainly, whatever the limit may be, hon. Members may take it that it will in every case be a limited return on the capital invested.
§ Mr. ROCHMay I ask if, while the dividend is limited, the firms will be allowed to carry the surplus to reserve, or what will happen with the surplus over the limit?
§ Sir A. STANLEYThe surplus I suggest would. I do not say it would be so in every case, but, generally speaking, any surplus that was made would go towards the repayment of the loan. I should not, however, like to say that that would be so in every instance. It may be that in some cases it would be of advantage, broadly speaking, if some part of this surplus were used for the purpose of extensions, and that instead of obtaining further loans for That purpose the reserve could be utilised. But these are business propositions upon which you cannot lay down any cast-iron rule; you must be guided by circumstances with respect to each particular firm. All I suggest is that so long as the profit which may be secured by the shareholders is limited, and the Government can be secured with respect to its loan, in so far as the financial part is concerned, that may be considered satisfactory. Then, to secure the advantage of this loan and also to secure the advantage of any contribution towards the cost of establishment, the firm will be placed under a further obligation, and this I suggest is a very important aspect of the problem. The firms will be put under an obligation—a deadly obligation—to manufacture a range of dyes which perhaps at the present moment cannot be pro- 2123 duced upon a commercial basis, but a range of colours which it is essential in the national interest should be produced.
Those who are familiar with this particular industry will realise that the dyes made, generally speaking, can be classified under two heads—one the commoner range of dyes, for which there is a considerable demand in bulk and from which the manufacturer makes a goodly profit, and the other, the, finer range of dyes, which involve very considerable investments for plant which require long and painstaking research, and from which there is only a limited return in so far as bulk is concerned, and therefore upon which a small profit only is generally made. It is for that particular range of colours more than perhaps time, involving considerable expenditure of money on research work, that we propose to make advances to those firms not only in the way of loans, but as contributions which will not be recoverable towards the cost of establishing the undertaking. We feel justified in making the loans because of the increased cost involved, especially at the present time. My right hon. Friend raised the question as to the proportion which this £600,000 would bear to the total cost. I cannot give the exact figures. We made no bargain, but I think I can safely say to the Committee that on the average—there will be exceptions, of course—it will not exceed the figure which my right hon. Friend gave and which was 40 per cent. As I have said, there will be exceptions perhaps one way or the other, sometimes a little higher and sometimes a little lower, but, on the average, I think that I can safely say that it will not exceed the figure that I have mentioned.
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes; that is about the figure.
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be any restrictions on the prices to be charged by these firms to the users?
§ Sir A. STANLEYBoth with regard to the prices which will be charged to the consumers and the distribution of the products amongst the consumers, which I venture to suggest is equally important, so that not only the large users but the smaller users as well, will equally secure 2124 fair treatment. It is proposed, in so far as we have authority to do it, that the Board of Trade shall have the right to interfere if complaint is made that unduly high prices are being charged for their products or if, on the other hand, complaint is made that there has not been a fair distribution amongst the users of the products of the firms who are receiving the benefit of these Grants from the Government.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI desire to lay particular emphasis upon that point. This proposition cannot fairly be compared with the origin of British Dyes. It is not proposed, in so far as this money is concerned, whenever any loan is made or any contribution is made to any firm, that the shareholders, or the public, if you will, should be asked to contribute either an equal or a less amount. There is a very good reason for that. This sum of money is intended for a particular purpose. Briefly, the object is to establish the dye industry in this country within a very narrow compass of time upon such a basis that, at the close of hostilities or shortly afterwards—here, of course, one dare not prophesy, but-assuming the War goes on a reasonable time——
§ Sir A. STANLEYThen, in so far as one can judge the position to-day, it is thought that we shall be able to establish this industry within that time upon the basis which I have mentioned. I quite appreciate why that remark creates a laugh. In so far as one to-day can possibly foresee, given the necessary encouragement and assistance, this industry should be able properly to establish itself within that time. Therefore, it is for a particular purpose that this money is intended, and it must be looked at, I suggest, rather differently from the proposal when British Dyes were first established.
§ Mr. SAMUELMy right hon. Friend has not answered several of the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). I took a note of what he asked. The only information that my right hon. Friend has so far given is to the effect that the sums which are to be granted for exten- 2125 sions will be about 40 per cent. of the total amount which will be invested in these undertakings. He was asked what further Grants are in prospect, to what extent is it proposed to carry this enterprise, and what proportion of the £1,000,000 which we are now asked to Grant bears to the total sum which the Board of Trade calculate will be expended upon this industry. Further, he was asked through what agencies the research work is to be carried on. A very large sum is to be devoted for research. Who is to undertake the research? Is it to be done under the auspices of the Committee of the Privy Council on Industrial and Scientific Research, and, if not, under whose auspices? Further, he was asked what is the position of a very important firm in this industry, Messrs. Levenstein. All those important questions were put by my right hon. Friend, and I think that they should receive specific replies. I would add another one. Will the financial arrangements proposed to be made by particular companies with the assistance of public money be laid before Parliament and be open to our consideration?
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade told us that he has only had nineteen months' Parliamentary experience, but his statement was marked by all the art, all the skill, and all the ingenuity of a muck older Parliamentary hand. He gave the appearance of taking the House completely into his confidence. He would tell us overything except the technical details. Of course, the technical details must be reserved because obviously that would be giving important information to the enemy as to the progress that we are making in this highly important industry. But on every other point except technical details all the cards were to be placed on the table. I waited, but I did not see a single card, not one. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) thinks that this is really the best way in which to treat Parliament. Formerly the Board of Trade used to come down and put a cut and dried agreement upon the Table. They said, "These are the terms of the prospectus. These are the names of the directors. This is the capital which the public are going to be invited to subscribe. This is what the Government are going to provide." The House used to know what was the agreement that the Government had entered into. It was far better that 2126 these things should be kept in the dark, that the House should not be told, and that a free hand should be given to the Minister "to distribute largesse as he pleased." He was going to tell us in advance. What has he told us in advance? He has told us the money, but not the details or to whom he is going to give it. We know who was going to get the money in connection with British Dyes. The Board of Trade told us. They told us that the Government were going to be represented on the Board for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the Treasury in the matter. All we know about this is that some private companies are going to receive assistance, partly in the way of loan and partly in the way of Grant, but we have no security as to the way in which these private corporations will use the money. There is some indefinite check to be placed on the amount which is to be divided by way of profits. Well, we have had a great many promises and a great many statements from the Government about the limitation of profits and the limitation of dividends during this War, but we know that the great majority of these have been entirely illusory. To use a vulgarism, they have been "eye-wash." It is quite easy for any private company to walk round all the provisions that have been made. It has been done under the Munitions Levy, it has been done in connection with excess profits, and it will be done in connection with the Grants which the right hon. Gentleman now asks the Committee to make. We want something more definite. I suggest that before the Committee assents to the very large Vote it is now asked to make that it should insist on much more definite information being given than the Government is evidently prepared to give. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) is prepared to trust the Board of Trade. Some people have good grounds for trusting the Board of Trade. The gas and other statutory companies have good reason to trust the Board of Trade after yesterday's experience. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is well advised in saying that he can trust the Board of Trade. But what about the public—the people who are going to find the money?
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDIf the hon. Member insinuates that I have any interest in any of these statutory undertakings, he is quite wrong, and giving the Committee an entirely erroneous impression. I have 2127 no such interest, and I have no personal grounds such as he suggests for trusting the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI never made any insinuation. I said the hon. Gentleman trusted the Board of Trade. I said that a good many other people had good grounds for trusting the Board of Trade, and I appreciated that attitude. It was a very innocent and fair observation to make. We know that the gas shares have gone up because the directors of those companies, who were so well represented here, trusted the Board of Trade. I have no doubt that the dye shares will also go up, because the people who are interested in those things trust the Board of Trade. But we want to know who are going to get the money. There is no technical reason for failing to disclose that. The late President of the Board of Trade put two definite questions: Are Levensteins going to get any of it; are the Patent Aniline Company going to get any of it? Those are specific questions. Before the Government asked this Committee to vote the money they must have had in their minds who the beneficiaries are. They have no right to come here unless they have in their minds who the beneficiaries are, and unless they are prepared to disclose to the Committee who are the beneficiaries. Who are the beneficiaries? Those two questions were definitely put by the late President of the Board of Trade. They have been repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel), and no answer has been given. We know what has happened in the past. Levenstein's shares were worth a few shillings before the War. They are now worth as many pounds as they were worth shillings before the War. Why is an industry that is doing so well as that to be made the recipients of Government Grants? We were told—this was a very interesting observation which the President made, and it was characterised by a vagueness and evasiveness entirely laudable in such a young Parliamentary hand—that he was anxious to place the industry upon a durable and stable basis——
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLFoundation.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYes, "foundation" was the word—within a certain period after the conclusion of hostilities, if the War went on for a reasonable time. We should ask for a little interpretation of that.
§ Mr. PRINGLEWhat do the Government contemplate as a reasonable time for the duration of the War? First, has it any reference, for instance, to the General Election? Secondly, what do they consider a stable foundation? We are entitled to know these things. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool told us what he regarded as a stable foundation—that is, the basis upon which the German companies were—namely, having £40,000,000 of capital. That is a stable foundation. Is that what the Government contemplate as a stable foundation for the industry in this country?
§ Sir W. RUTHERFORDIt would take ten years. The hon. Member is continually misquoting the statements I made. I do not want to interrupt, but it is very difficult to sit still and listen to misquotations and perversions of the truth.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI do not complain of the heated observations of my hon. Friend. A gentleman who has been rewarded by the Government is entitled to show a little heat, but when he accuses me of perversions of the truth and of misquotations, and when I give him the opportunity of correcting me, he does not avail himself of the opportunity of correcting me. I have quoted as faithfully as I could the ipsissima verba[...] of the President of the Board of Trade. I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I think every hon. Gentleman who listened to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and who has listened to my quotations, will agree that I have given a faithful representation of what the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course, the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool is now such a faithful follower of the Government that he must protect the President of the Board of Trade against himself. Obviously, that is his present position. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his second statement, has added nothing whatever substantial to what is disclosed in the footnote to this Estimate. There has never been a less satisfactory and a more meagre account of the details of expenditure in any Estimate for a similar sum of money at any time, except in regard to some of the general Estimates during this War. What is the Estimate? You have here £1,250,000 in loans, £600,000 in contribu- 2129 tions in aid of extensions of plant and buildings, and £150,000 in Grants-in-Aid of research. I would like to know what is the difference between a contribution and a Grant? I assume that the £000,000, which is by way of contribution, is a free gift to the companies by way of buildings, and that no repayment of any kind is desired by the Government. It is very strange that such generous terms should be made to companies undisclosed and beneficiaries unknown. This Committee, as representing the public, has no right to assent to anything of the kind. If we are going to give Grants to people tell us who they are. We remember a former Government telling us that at least while they were in office they would look after their friends. That was the statement of a former Cabinet Minister. There are some suspicions abroad at present, and obviously if there are £600,000 going there will be a great many people who will be friends of the Government. It is a very useful thing to have £600,000 on the eve of a General Election. We are entering upon a course of the subsidising of industry new to this country. The hon. Member for Greenock says it is American politics. I was not going to say that because America is an Ally, and it is not fashionable to say things about Allies in these times. But we have seen a little Lobbying in these last few days, and if this kind of thing goes on we are going to see more Lobbying. We are going to see all kinds of directors in that Lobby wanting to know where they come in, and there will be a great many more directors making speeches in this House about "the company which I represent," as we had the other night. There are some people who do not want to see this kind of thing in this country. They think, although America is an Ally, there are a great many American things we had better avoid in this country, and this is one of them.
10.0 P.M.
Then let us take this £150,000 for research. Who is going to get that? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) put a specific question as to the people who were to have the administration of that money. That question has been repeated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel; No answer has been given. I wonder if it is these powerful companies which are going to be the people who will deal with research. It is usually the big companies that get these things. While I am referring to these companies, I will tell the 2130 President of the Board of Trade a little incident which is less than twelve months old. I happen to have a friend who is a chemist. He was a German-trained chemist. He had given special attention to the study of this question of dyes in a German university, and when it was said that there was a great need of dyes in this country he thought he might go into the business, and, with another man, he started a small industry. He did not come hat in hand to the Board of Trade for a subsidy. He and his friend had a little capital, and they started works in London. Then the Military Service Act came in. He made the plea that he was doing work of national importance, not with any money from the Treasury, but on his own money. He was turned down. He was put into the Army, and the business in which he had put his little capital was closed down, and he has lost it all, and for six months he has been in the Royal Artillery. And that is scientific organisation! When I know of incidents of that kind of my own knowledge, where a man is willing to use his own money for the purpose of promoting this industry, who was not looking for any boodle, and is treated in that way by people who say they are looking after the national interests, I look with suspicion on Grants of this kind, and unless the right hon. Gentleman tells us who are going to get these loans and Grants, and who are going to administer the research, this Committee has no right to part with £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money.
§ Mr. HOLTI had the privilege of opening this discussion, and have listened to the two speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I think they are both extremely unsatisfactory. He let fall a very interesting remark about the duration of the War, and the War lasting a reasonable time. I cannot think he meant exactly what he appeared to say, but he appeared to say the Government intended to continue the War until the dyeing industry had been put upon a satisfactory footing. If that is really the view of the Government peace offensives and peace negotiations become an absolutely useless proceeding. I cannot think that can be the considered opinion of the Government, but that is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and we must believe for the moment that it is true. Then, why did he tell us he could give no information as to the progress of the dyeing industry 2131 in this country? Clearly because it is unsatisfactory. If it were satisfactory there is no information which it would be more useful to disclose. The effect upon the German mind would be discouraging. It is quite obvious that if the dyeing industry was put on a thoroughly sound footing it would be a very good tiling to let the Germans know it, because they would be discouraged, and the reason for not disclosing it is that so far the great efforts which have been made by artificial means to stimulate the dyeing industry are not satisfactory. Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us the dyeing industry is an essential industry which should be treated differently from other industries. But is that so? I have always had a quarrel with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman) for the way in which he has acted in some of these matters, and I think he knows what I think about his conduct. I want someone to prove to me that the dye industry is different in any essential shape from many other industries in this country—for instance, the shipbuilding industry. Would it not be more inconvenient for us to see the collapse of the shipbuilding industry than the collapse of the dyeing industry? And if you are going to have special treatment for the dyeing industry, ought you not to prove that in some material respects it differs from half a dozen other industries, such as shipbuilding and engineering?
The right hon. Gentleman told us he was going to give this assistance to the dye manufacturers in accordance with some precedents which have been set by the Ministry of Munitions. A great many of those precedents are extremely bad. A great many things the Ministry of Munitions has done are signs of what is to be avoided. They are a warning. For instance, in a very short time the House will get a good deal of information as to a company which the Ministry of Munitions set on its feet, in which, before anything material has been done, a gentleman who had subscribed for a 6d. share got 14½ shares of £1 each. I do not know whether that is the sort of precedent that the right hon. Gentleman asks us to follow. I want to follow the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman. He told us that £600,000 was, as near as possible, 40 per cent. of the capital of the businesses.
§ Sir A. STANLEYWhat I meant to say was that £600,000 would be practically, as 2132 nearly as possible, equivalent to 40 per cent. of the total cost of the extensions, not of the capital.
§ Mr. HOLTLet us see. £600,000 is 40 per cent. of £1,500,000. If you take £600,000 from £1,500,000, £900,000 is left. I understand the Government propose to lend £1,250,000. How does that work out? If you gave £600,000 and lend £1,250,000, surely you have a total of more than £1,500,000. I would like to understand the sum. Even supposing the £600,000 gift is to be additional to the £1,500,000, then if you lend £1,250,000 the total amount to be provided by the people is only £250,000. So far as I know, my sums are correct, and it needs some explanation. I want to know whether it is really the case that the Government propose to advance as a gift £600,000, and as a loan £1,250,000, to persons who are only going to produce £250,000 of their own. Is that the proposition? So far as I can judge from the figures given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, that is the correct sum. If so, it is thoroughly unsatisfactory, as security to the public. I think we ought to know with regard to the Grant for research a great deal more as to what are the terms. It is quite clear that if large Grants are going to be made for research to people to make discoveries, they have no right to patent them against the public. It is a monstrous thing that when a person is paid to make discoveries that when he makes discoveries he should be able to take out a patent to prevent those persons who have paid him for his time while he is making those discoveries using the patent, and that he should be able to establish a manufacturing monopoly. That will not do. We ought also to have particulars as to the price at which goods are to be sold. In his first speech the right hon. Gentleman told us that he was contemplating not only the manufacture of stock for home requirements but that he contemplated setting up this industry as an exporting trade.
§ Sir A. STANLEYFor the Dominions.
§ Mr. HOLTFor the Dominions! For the Dominions only, we are to have ten years guarantee of exclusive importation. Is that really what is contemplated? Are we to have a dye-exporting trade limited to the Dominions? Am I to understand that an exporter will not be allowed to export, say, to China, but will be required only to export to Australia and Canada?
§ Sir A. STANLEYI want to be quite clear. Obviously, there is a very large trade to be secured within the Empire. India plays a very important part. It will be desired that we should secure that trade with India and help India if we can rather than that she should secure her dyes from Germany, but there is no reason why, in dealing in the export trade, we should not attempt to secure markets in China as well as in India.
§ Mr. HOLTThen, are we to understand that we are to subsidise manufacturers of dyes in order that China may get dyes cheaper than she otherwise would? Is it contemplated to ask the British taxpayer to pay large sums of money in order that India, Canada, Australia, and China may get dyes at a less price than they otherwise would? In other words, the British taxpayer is to make himself more or less insolvent in order to make that provision. I think that is very bad economics, and I think we ought to know a great deal more about this plan. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows what his plans are. His plan cannot be quite as bad as he says it is. He must have thought of something better than to pay subsidies to manufacturers to make dyes in order to sell them cheaper to India and China He said there must be a limit as to the amount of dividend, and that the surplus must be used to repay the Government loan. Surely it might occur to the Government that if they are going to have their loan repaid by the surplus, that surplus might also be used to repay the gift as well as the loan! Why should there be any gift at all if you contemplate a very large surplus which will be available for repayment of loan after paying a fixed rate of dividend? Would it not be better for the Government to make it all loan, fix a maximum dividend which the company may pay, and direct that the whole of the surplus should be used for repayment? There could be no possible objection to that plan, and if at the end it was discovered that the company was insolvent, then you could treat them like you treat the trustees of Eye-mouth Harbour, and write off the loan annually.
This scheme is by no means amply considered. I think it is very doubtful whether it is a proper scheme at all. It is quite clear that there has been no real conson of it. The right hon. Gentleman does not really know what persons are in need of such assistance, or if he 2134 does he will not tell us. If we are to have a scheme of this sort, it is essential in the public interest that we should have a regular agreement, like the Cunard Agreement, ratified by Parliament, stipulating exactly what it is that each party has to do in return for the sum of money which he receives from the State, what he is to sell, and what terms he is to sell at. It will be very difficult after voting this sum of money, having regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to refuse to these manufacturers ten years' protection against all importation. I understand that it is part of his bargain with the persons to whom he is giving these advances of money that he should give them a ten years' monopoly in this country. If these people do not get a ten years' monopoly they will be entitled to refuse to repay the loan. That, I presume, is the proposition. He has told us that it is the policy of the Government to prohibit the importation of dyes except under license, and he is going to lend money on the faith of that promise. Therefore, the fact is that we are tying ourselves for ten years to certain private persons on the faith of a money transaction, and during that time we are not to allow importation of dyes. That is the effect of the arrangement proposed. I am not going to agree to it. All this is part of a mad scheme that leads people to suppose you can in this country establish every conceivable trade. It cannot be done. You can only establish this and other trades which we did not have before the War at the expense of destroying trades we did have before the War. To deal with this as an isolated case without giving general consideration to the whole trade of the country is madness. I, at any rate, would ask the Committee to divide against this very improper proposal.
§ Mr. O'SHEEI have had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade for the first time. I have heard of him in other capacities as a great business man and a man who reorganised the electrical railways of London, but I never heard him address the House until this occasion, and having heard of him as a man with a great business reputation, I was rather surprised to find the statement he made to the Committee to-night did not bear evidence of very careful research on the question which is under consideration. The statement was very vague and ambiguous. For 2135 instance, he said in one part of his statement that loans would be made to any firms which want assistance. When the Estimates were made out four or five months ago, I see under the heading of "Original Estimates" nil in reference to "this matter, and the revised Estimate is £1,000,000 which we are asked to vote tonight. I should have thought he would have told us something as to the genesis of this proposal. Members of the Committee know something of the history of this question at any rate, but members of the Committee know nothing of the genesis of this proposal to vote £1,000,000 for the expenses of his offer during the current year. Surely this proposal must have a history! What caused the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward this proposal? Who suggested it? Was it suggested by any firm who proposed to carry on or to set up this industry, to carry on a particular industry to make the finer range of colours to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? As he informed the Committee, the commoner dyes are made on a commercial basis already, and the object of these loans and these Grants which it is proposed to make from the money that is to be voted by the Committee to-night is to encourage this industry in the finer range of dyes. But surely the right hon. Gentleman must be in a position to tell the Committee of some organisation or proposed organisations, some firm which has approached his Department, which has told the Board of Trade that they desire, with the assistance of a Grant or a loan from the public fund, to set up on a stable basis this manufacture of the finer range of dyes. He has told the Committee nothing of that. He has made a very general statement, a most unbusinesslike statement I should call it. He started by saying why he could not go into details—the usual reason. Then he went on to say the money required, the money the Committee was asked to vote, is money beyond what the ordinary investor would be prepared to give.
As the hon. Member who has just spoken has pointed out, in the limitation of 40 per cent. which the right hon. Gentleman imposes with regard to the Grants which he is to make for buildings and extensions, some investors must be ready to find a gum of £900,000 in order to enable them to claim from the right hon. Gentleman's Department the total of £600,000 allocated for those purposes. He has not given the Committee an idea as to any single firm 2136 or organisation which has come to him and said, "We are prepared to find a sum of money, £10,000, £20,000, £100,000, what-ever it may be, if you will give us in addition to that 40 per cent. by way of Grant towards these extensions, buildings, and plant." Why should he not give us even one instance to show that there is some basis in fact for the proposal now made, which was not thought of four months ago when the original Estimate was prepared? He says that in making a loan he would stipulate, first of all, for adequate security. Adequate security implies that the firm applying for the loan has, first of all, a business organisation, has capital, plant, and buildings. Otherwise it cannot offer adequate security. Therefore the firm must be an organised entity at the present time, though his remarks that he proposed to make loans to a firm which can give assistance in the matter seem to suggest that he invites applications for loans from individuals or groups of individuals who are not organised at present for carrying on this business. A second condition of making a loan was that the persons applying for the loan should undertake to restrict dividends. He will certainly be able to get many people to take a loan from him on an undertaking of that kind. There is no difficulty whatever in any group of persons proposing to carry on business with the help of public funds giving an undertaking that they will limit dividends. Limiting dividends does not cover limitations of salaries, and when salaries and management expenses are taken out there will be very little left in some of these cases for dividends.
Then as to repayment of the loan, he says that in making stipulations as to that he would be guided by the circumstances of each firm. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman asks, first of all, for an absolutely free hand as to the persons or firms to whom he is to distribute this sum of £1,000,000, a large proportion of which is to be given away as a Grant, and then he asks for an absolutely free hand as to how he would distribute the loan, so far as loans are to be made, and as to how these loans are to be repaid. The right hon. Gentleman has to determine in each individual case, without any regulation, or guide, or standpoint, how each individual firm is to act in connection with a loan. He has to stipulate with a firm which gets a loan that it shall manu- 2137 facture a range of dyes which cannot be manufactured on a commercial basis, and for which there is a small demand. Therefore, we have a very important limitation, the first of a definite kind the right hon. Gentleman has put upon himself for making grants and loans to firms. I presume that this applies to firms which get Grants for extensions of plant and buildings, and that they are to undertake to manufacture a certain range of dyes or no Grant or loan will be made to them. The contribution for research is only £150,000. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by the ex-Home Secretary whether the accounts of the firms which are to be subsidised will be available to the Committee of this House, whether Parliamentary Papers will be published giving the particulars of the accounts of the firms to whom those loans and Grants are made, showing the progress that they are making, and the use they make of public money.
This is a very novel Vote for a Committee of the House to consider. I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench said that, in his experience, there had been no such Vote asked for in a Committee of this House for nineteen years past. Certainly I have never heard in my experience as a Member of this House of such a Vote being asked to be made by a Committee of the House, and for that reason it is manifest that it was most desirable that the right hon. Gentleman, in asking for a Vote of £1,000,000 to-night, should have given a full and complete statement, leaving out small details which no Member of the Committee desires, as to how he proposes to allocate this money. He has made no attempt whatever, further than that he has given us the White Paper to indicate how the money is to be allocated. He has not told us anything as to the development of existing firms in the dye trade, and how he is to get a return on this money. It has been suggested that one of the leading firms in this dye industry, Levensteins of Manchester, has no need of loan or Grant of public money. They are a firm so prosperous at the present moment that they do not require to ask for public money or the taxpayers' money to enable them to carry on and extend and enlarge the industry in which they are engaged. If a firm of that kind is so prosperous, I should say that any other firm engaged in this industry on a basis 2138 similar to that on which Levensteins is engaged in ought to be similarly prosperous at the present time.
But the right hon. Gentleman suggested that these firms are engaged in making what he called the commercial or commoner range of dyes, for which there is a large demand, and that his only object in asking the Committee to Vote this million of money is to enable the finer range of dyes to be made, so as to set up in this country business organisations for the manufacture of the finer range of dyes, against which, at the termination of the War, the German dye manufacturers would be unable to compete. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I think this Committee ought not to Vote this money without a more adequate statement of the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the use of it. He has given no substantial explanation at all. This fund of £1,000,000 may be used the Committee knows not how, or in what direction, because it has got no guidance or illumination on that matter from the right hon. Gentleman, and it is very unfair of him to ask us to Vote this large sum of money without a full explanation. This Committee would willingly vote this money if the intention was really to set up a national industry, not for the benefit of private individuals, an industry that would be worked for the benefit of the taxpayers, as it is the taxpayers' money that is asked to be used to set it up. Why should these private firms or private individuals get this large Grant of three-quarters of a million, in addition to a loan of a million and a quarter? Why should not the one limitation to be placed on the giving of this money be that all the surplus profits, that will be realised in setting up this industry, with a maximum of 10, 15, or 20 per cent., to the shareholders who find the money for this very speculative undertaking—for it must be speculative to make it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Committee for these loans—should inure to the benefit of the taxpayers? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question and to consider whether he ought not to come down to this Committee on a future, and an early, occasion and make a fuller statement as to the use that is to be made of this money and tell the Committee plainly what has been done with it and whether he will stipulate that the profits over and above 2139 a fair return to the private investors should inure to the benefit of the general taxpayers.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt may possibly save the time of the Committee if at this stage I reply to the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. The first question was whether any further Grants are contemplated. I myself know of no further Grant beyond the £2,000,000 which we have in contemplation in connection with this particular industry. I was further asked, with reference to the research, who was to receive the benefit of this research fund and how the fund would be distributed. As I said in the early part of the Debate, it is very desirable that this research fund should be spread over the widest field possible, that it should not be limited solely to those who are engaged in the industry, but that opportunity should be afforded for university and other institutions to share in this research so that, as I have said, the field may be as wide as possible, and necessarily beneficial to the industry in that way. The research fund will be administered by a committee, which will be composed of an equal number of representatives of dye-users and of dye manufacturers, under an independent chairman, so that we may be assured that in the distribution of this fund the very best use will be made of it. With reference to the firm of Levenstein, I am not prepared at this time to accept the suggestion, which has been made in several quarters, that we should indicate now what firms are to secure any of these loans or contributions. I suggest that it would be folly for us at this stage publicly to say who would be entitled to receive any of these contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It would certainly open the door to these people to come forward and ask for this money.
§ Mr. S. MacNEILLIs there any understanding of the right hon. Gentleman with Levenstein? How long has Levenstein been naturalised?
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am afraid I cannot say how long he has been naturalised. So far as any understanding between myself and Levenstein is concerned, I am sure the hon. Member is not suggesting any impropriety.
§ Mr. MacNEILLOh, no!
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt is quite unnecessary for me to say again that there is no understanding of any kind or description between myself and anybody else.
§ Mr. MacNEILLCertainly not.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI repeat what I said before, but I think it would be folly for me at this stage to give any indication by mentioning any name of any firm who would be entitled to receive any benefit from this fund.
§ Mr. P. A. HARRISWill the names be submitted to the House before money is given?
§ Sir A. STANLEYThe firms who are to have the benefit of this will be those firms in the United Kingdom who are established here, and who can prove to the satisfaction of a committee, which, as I said before, will be composed of representatives of users and manufacturers, that by the use of public money they will be able in return to secure to this country at least a corresponding benefit. As regards the last question about giving information to the House with reference to the use of this money, there certainly can be no objection whatever to laying before the House from time to time information which will indicate the names of the firms and the amount of money they receive from these loans from time to time.
§ Mr. H. SAMUELBefore the agreements are made?
§ Sir A. STANLEYObviously; I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not suggest that in a matter of this kind before any Grant is made we should come to the House and secure its assent? I am sure that would be beyond what would be reasonable. I do respectfully suggest—I am sure hon. Members realise how very serious is this matter—that they do not think I should leave this matter alone and not make any effort to establish these industries upon a proper basis? I do respectfully suggest, that if this money is voted and the machinery is set up, as I have suggested, that we can leave to the Board of Trade and that organisation the responsibility for determining who shall have this money. So long as we indicate to the House the firms who receive this money and amounts they get, that really, under the circumstances, should be satisfactory.
§ Mr. SAMUELI am sorry to ask leave of the Committee to intervene again, 2141 but the right hon. Gentleman's speech has left this matter in a position which is far from satisfactory. As he says, this is a very grave matter, which raises large questions of policy, and the House of Commons must consider its relation to these proposals. I regret the more having to intervene again, because I am in sympathy with the general purposes that my right hon. Friend has in view. I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), who seemed to be of opinion that nothing need be done by the State in regard to dyes. I think it is necessary to take action, and that the action is well advised in seeking to establish the industry in this country on a sound footing. There are such things, I believe, as key industries which are of vital importance to the great staple trades of our country. It is not safe for our country to leave itself entirely dependent upon foreign supplies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said that if there is a key industry, surely shipping is one! Happily, most of our essential industries are long and firmly established in the country, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not deny that even shipowners in ordinary times have been able to make a fairly comfortable livelihood. The course adopted in regard to these exceptional industries in regard to which the State and the national interest must take unusual steps is attended with very grave dangers. We may be quite sure that in these matters private profit will seek to come in under the cloak of national necessity; that industries that are not key industries at all will endeavour to obtain the use of public money under that guise; that trades which ought to and really are able to stand alone will declare that unless they have Government aid they will be the helpless victims of foreign competition. All these are very grave dangers. Furthermore, there is this risk, that the Government Department may make such bargains with particular trades as really to bind the hands of Parliament in respect to matters of fiscal policy. If my right hon. Friend, without the assent of Parliament, makes a binding agreement that these amounts are only repayable to the State if the State excludes all foreign competition for a term of years, then the hands of Parliament are really tied without the representatives of the people ever being consulted. In addition, agreements which are entered 2142 into in one industry may be regarded as precedents to be quoted by others. Others will say that if the Board of Trade made such-and-such agreement with respect to a certain firm, other firms would say, "We claim a similar agreement in our case." Therefore I think it is essential that the House of Commons, if it assents to embarking upon a policy of this kind—and I think it is inevitable—should be very watchful and jealous to prevent this. Therefore I do press upon my right hon. Friend that Parliament ought to be made cognisant of these agreements before they are definitely entered into. It is reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to say to-night, "I cannot negotiate with these people at all unless you express some general approval of this policy, because I may negotiate these agreements and then find that Parliament will have nothing whatver to do with them." That is an attitude which I can understand, and it is not a position that I would propose to take up. I suggest, if the House of Commons passes this Vote, the right hon. Gentleman should give a binding Parliamentary undertaking that before any agreement is actually signed it should be placed in draft on the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may say that negotiations of that kind are impossible, but they are actually required by Parliament.
§ Mr. SAMUELI was about to quote that instance, but before the Cunard agreement was signed it was laid upon the Table of the House and Parliament had to pass the necessary measures to endorse it. Standing Order 72 provides, in regard to any mail contract that, before it becomes operative, if it imposes any obligation or charge, it must be ratified by a Resolution of this House. I had the great honour to occupy for five years the position of Postmaster-General, and again and again I had to negotiate contracts for the carriage of mails, and one had to enter into the terms and consider the figures, and it was always understood by the contractor that the contract would not become operative unless it had lain upon the Table and this House had passed a specific Resolution endorsing it. I submit, with that precedent before him and the Cunard agreement, the right hon. Gentleman cannot brush aside this suggestion as wholly impossible.
2143 As this is a very grave matter embarking upon a new field where every step may involve the country in very grave risks and dangers, I think we ought to press upon the Government to-night before agreeing to this Vote that such agreements should become operative only after being laid upon the Table of this House and after there has been a due interval for discussion if desired to take place.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI think the statement of the President of the Board of Trade is really most unconvincing. Nobody denies the importance of the dye industry or that it was in an unsatisfactory condition prior to the War and that it should be established on better lines. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would receive no opposition from any part of the House in regard to that matter although there may be a difference of opinion as to how this can best be done. I should have been glad to see the dye industry established in such a way that if public money is to be given it would not be used, for the paying of any private dividend or private profit, and we ought to lift the dye industry out of the realm of private profit making. That is an arguable matter about which there will be a difference of opinion, but you enter a very dangerous region when you propose to scatter some £2,000,000 of public money over a large field of private industry, and surely the House, if it is going to sanction an arrangement of that kind, must hedge it round with the strictest conditions, in order to see what is really going to happen. Who is going to get this money? Are we going to vote a blank cheque to the President of the Board of Trade, and is this money going to be spent, or distributed, or given away by the Board of Trade without any control by this House over the conditions which is to be applied to this or that firm?
That raises a very dangerous principle indeed; it takes us one further step on the road along which we have been moving recently. We have been more and more adopting the policy of subsidising and guaranteeing with public money this and that industry. Yesterday we were using our votes to establish the position of various gas companies; later on the Government will be able to go to the country with the cry that they are going to give public money to everybody who needs it—a very good election cry 2144 with very corrupt politics at the end of it—politics which, I hope, this country will long refuse to endorse and adopt. What guarantee are we going to have that this money will be wisely spent? What guarantee are we going to have that a large part of this £2,000,000 sterling will not be wasted? What tests are going to be applied to the companies? What questions are going to be asked of them? If the President of the board of Trade says to a company, "If we give you £100,000, will you pledge us it shall all be spent to the national advantage?" what answer do you expect from the company? What tests are you going to apply to see that the money is wisely spent and that no part of it is used to relieve the company of its ordinary financial obligations or to enable it to pay higher dividends? These are matters which are vital from the standpoint of Members of this House, and I associate myself heartily with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that we ought very strongly to endeavour to secure that Parliament shall absolutely and strictly control this expenditure before we vote it, and make sure that the money is going to be used for the public good and not to provide dividends.
§ Mr. MARTINThere is a matter which seems to have a bearing on this question which has not so far been referred to. Has the President of the Board of Trade made any inquiries as to the position of the United States on this question? When the War broke out they were in exactly the same position as this country. They had hitherto been dependent on Germany for dyes, and as a result of the blockade they were no longer able to get dyestuffs from that country. They at once took up the question. The other day one of the largest New York papers published a commercial supplement detailing the commercial position of the United States in all the leading industries. In that country, on these questions, they take up an entirely different position to that position to that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and they gave in that in detail the position of the United States in the dyeing industry. They do not refuse to disclose it; they published the amount each company is manufacturing and they were able to make a glorious sttement showing how they have eclipsed this country. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in spite of subsidies we 2145 are not yet in a position to manufacture the dyestuffs we need. But in this commercial supplement it was stated that the United States to-day were absolutely independent of Germany or any other country; that in the four years since the War began they had from the stage of dependence on other countries got to that of being able to produce all the dyeing stuffs they required at prices which even German firms could not compete with. In addition, it was stated that they were making dyestuffs much superior to any made by Germany. They had made great success with these finer kinds of dyes. They had produced dyes of great brilliancy and great commercial value, much superior to anything produced by Germany. The right hon. Gentleman told us that one of the objects was to enable them to export dyestuffs to Canada. How does he think that this country could send dye-stuffs to Canada to compete with the dye-stuffs manufactured in America? To my mind, the £2,000,000 is a small matter compared with this agreement absolutely to exclude all foreign dyestuffs for the long period of ten years after the end of the War. That is the really serious matter. It is protection such as has never been adopted by any other country. What will be the position of the manufacturers in this country who use the dyestuffs? They are the people who ought to be considered. What will be the position of these manufacturers of clothing and other goods in China and India in competition with the manufacturer of the United States, where they have built up an industry by their own energy and ability unaided by any State subsidy? This ten years' agreement is going to hamper British manufacturers and make it impossible for them to sell their goods cheaply throughout the world as they have done in the past. Under this agreement the manufacturer of dyestuffs will demand his pound of flesh. Under these circumstances, before this country binds itself by any such agreement, we ought to have the fullest information with regard to the position of the United States in this matter. I would further suggest that a part of the £150,000 which is to be devoted to research should be invested in sending experts over to the United States to find out how it is that their chemists have so much eclipsed ours in the four years that they have been at work.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
2146 11.0 P.M.
I do so because we have had no satisfactory statement with regard to this Vote. I was, unfortunately, prevented from hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Estimate; but I heard his explanation in reply to some of the points raised in the Debate. I propose to justify the reduction by two of the arguments which he used in his reply, which seemed to me not to meet at all the case which has been presented to the Committee. The question was asked of the President whether the £000,000 in contributions in aid of extensions of plant and buildings were contributions which would not be recoverable or whether it was a sum which the State could recover. I take it, from the absence of any reply from the President, that the £600,000 is a gift to whomsoever is lucky enough to secure it. If hon. Members will read the preceding Clause they will see that £1,250,000 is to be loaned
at not less than 1 per cent. above bank rate…repayable in twenty years or earlier if the profits of the manufacturer are more than 9 per cent.I suggest that if it is at all possible inside that period of time that so large a profit as 9 per cent. may be made, there can be no reason why the people who have the £600,000 advanced to them as well as the £1,250,000 should not repay to the State the £600,000 advanced to them for plant and buildings. That is a reasonable point to put. I do not know whether the President can tell us what security he has, for example, for the recovery of the £1,250,000 which he proposes to advance to these people? This is a fairy tale, so far as it is set out in the Estimate. He hopes, inside twenty years, if the profits rise to 9 per cent., to recover the £1,250,000 of public money which is advanced for this purpose. I put these two further questions to the President, or whoever is going to reply: First, will he tell the Committee what security they have for the repayment of the £1,250,000, and why, if that £1,250,000 can be advanced for the purposes of the industry and is recoverable, the £600,000 which is put down here as a contribution is not also recoverable on the same terms as the loan of £1,250,000? That is a perfectly fair point to put to the right hon. Gentleman.The second argument upon which I urge the reduction is with reference to the question of research. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the £150,000 2147 would be spread over a very wide field. First of all, you cannot spread £150,000 over a very wide field. It is absolutely impossible to spend £150,000 in scientific research and spread it over a wide field. Anyone who knows anything at all about scientific research in our universities or in the laboratories attached to our great industrial centres knows perfectly well that £150,000 would not go very far. The President was deliciously indefinite as to the use of that money. For instance, he threw out the hint that the universities would also share in the £150,000 for research. I do not know whether he has consulted his colleague, the President of the Board of Education, as to how many universities there are in this country, and particularly in the industrial centres of this country, and as to what it would mean even if it were distributed equally among those universities.
I should like to draw attention to the rather interesting information given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the Committee which is to determine the Grants which are to be made. They are to be made to a class of people, the people who use dyes and the people who make dyes, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested one reason why he could not tell the Committee who was going to get them, that if he did he would have a procession of other people coming and asking him for Grants out of this £600,000. But the essence of all true success in this country has been the individual energy that is put into business, and why should those firms which are outside this close ring of dye makers and dye users who are to be upon this committee be excluded from coming to the President of the Board of Trade and asking for these Grants? It is perfectly evident that if you have a committee composed of dye makers and dye users, and there is £600,000 available for plant and buildings, there is very little money to distribute, and that that money will be distributed very probably between those who are able most quickly to get the ear of the committee, and that all independent, energetic, alert, intelligent business men who are interested in the development either of dyes or any other business in the country will be precluded from developing their business as a result of their individual abilities, because, forsooth, here is a committee of dye makers and dye users appointed by the President of the Board 2148 of Trade, without whose consent they cannot enlarge their buildings, and because we have had no information at all with regard to these points, whether the £600,000 is recoverable, whether it could not be recoverable in the same way as the £1,250,000, of which we have no information as to how it is secured, because the committee is composed of interested persons who, according to the President of the Board of Trade, will exclude all outside individual business men in making grants till that money is expended, I move, to reduce the Vote.
Colonel COLLINSOur request to the President of the Board of Trade is a simple one. It is that before these agreements are entered into between the company and the Government they should be laid on the Table of the House. Under this estimate we are going to provide very large sums of money for a particular industry. We have no information from the Government as to how much money is to be provided by the private shareholders themselves. Calculations have been made to show that this £1,250,000 will be distributed to these firms, which will only require to find £250,000 themselves. If that statement be correct—and we have had no figure given to us by the Government on that subject—surely the request put forward by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) should be met by the Government! I hope the Government may meet us, but if the President of the Board of Trade does not give us that assurance, I hope we may carry into the Division Lobby Members from all quarters of the House. This estimate opens out a new policy, and if this new policy is to succeed, namely, the policy of subsidising private interests out of public funds, it can only succeed and remain permanently a policy in this country if there be complete publicity at every stage. We require publicity at every stage. First, as to the agreement, we want to know exactly where the money is going—into whose pockets it is going, into what industries, and into what districts—and that there should be applied to these matters the standard which Britain has always applied in past days, and where money is concerned full publicity should be given.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £999,900, be granted for the said service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 103.
2073| Division No. 75.] | AYES. | [6.25 p.m. |
| Baker, Maj. Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.) | Dairymple, Hon. H. H. | Terrell, George (Witts, N. W.) |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | |
| Boyton, Sir James | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Royds and Mr. Peto. |
| Cator, John | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | Hudson, Walter |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Crumley, Patrick | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Cullinan, John | Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Anderson, William C. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey) |
| Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf | Devlin, Joseph | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dillon, John | Joyce, Michael |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Doris, William | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. | Kilbride, Denis |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Duffy, William J. | King, Joseph |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Edge, Captain William | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Beach, William F. H. | Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Farrell, James Patrick | Lonsdale, James R. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Fell, Sir Arthur | M'Calium, Sir John M. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Ffrench, Peter | Macleod, John Mackintosh |
| Bird, Alfred | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | McMicking, Major Gilbert |
| Blair, Reginald | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Flavin, Michael Joseph | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Boland, John Pius | Fletcher, John Samuel | Malcolm, Ian |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Foster, Philip Staveley | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Gilbert, J. D. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford | Meagher, Michael |
| Broughton, Urban Hanlon | Goldstone, Frank | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Greig, Col. J. W. | Millar, James Duncan |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Gretton, John | Molloy, Michael |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William | Morgan, George Hay |
| Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hackett, John | Mount, Wiliam Arthur |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Muldoon, John |
| Clough, William | Hambre, Angus Valdemar | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Harbison, T. J. S. | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) |
| Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Nugent, J. D. (College, Green) |
| Colvin, Col. Richard Beale | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | O'Leary, Daniel |
| Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E. | O'Shee, James John |
| Cotton, H. E. A. | Holt, Richard Durning | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Parrott, Sir Edward | Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Partington, Hon. Oswald | Rutherford, Sir W. Watson (W. Derby) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Whiteley, Sir H. J. |
| Perkins, Walter F. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Pratt, J. W. | Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund | Scanlan, Thomas | Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M. (Beth'l Green, S.W.) |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel Sir E. | Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pulley, C. T. | Sheehy, David | Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth) |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Reddy, Michael | Stanton, Charles Butt | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) | Stewart, Gershom | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Rendall, Atheistan | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Younger, Sir George |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Walker, Col. William Hall | |
| Rowlands, James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest. |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
Question put, and agreed to.
| Division No. 76.] | AYES. | [11.12 p.m. |
| Anderson, William C. | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, S.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Jowett, Frederick William | O'Shee, James John |
| Clough, William | Joyce, Michael | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) |
| Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Keating, Matthew | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cotton, H. E. A. | Kilbride, Denis | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Crumley, Patrick | King, Joseph | Reddy, Michael |
| Cullinan, John | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Devlin, Joseph | McGhee, Richard | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Dillon, John | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Doris, William | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | Martin, Joseph | Sheeny, David |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Morgan, George Hay | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hackett, John | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Harbison, T. J. S. | Nugent, J. D. (College Green) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Holt and Mr. Hogge. |
| Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | O'Donnell, Thomas | |
| Hearn, Michael Louis |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John | Pratt, J. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Pulley, C. T. |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Gretton, John | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) |
| Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk. | Samuels, Arthur W. |
| Boyton, Sir James | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Jessel, Colonel Sir Herbert M. | Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Shortt, Edward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Asht'n-u-Lyne) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Stewart, Gershom |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Lonsdale, James R. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G. | McCalmont, Brig. Gen. Robert C. A. | Swift, Rigby |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Tickler, T. G. |
| Clyde, James Avon | Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel- | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Malcolm, Ian | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Mason, Robert (Wansbeck) | Wardle, George J. |
| Colvin, Col. Richard Beale | Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) | Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Mount, William Arthur | Whiteley, Sir H. J. |
| Dairymple, Hon. H. H. | Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield) | Wiliams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter) | Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H. | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | Parker, James (Halifax) | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Finney, Samuel | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darl'gton) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Pennefather, De Fonbianque | Younger, Sir George |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Perkins, Walter Frank | |
| Ganzoni, Francis John C. | Pete, Basil Edward | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest. |
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.