FABRIC GLOVES. (Hansard, 26 April 1922)

§ Captain W. BENN

I make no apology for pursuing a subject which has excited a considerable amount of interest and as to which we have never been able to extract from the Government a satisfactory reply. I mean the subject of the application of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The Act reads somewhat strangely in the light of Debates which are taking place to-day at Genoa. We have speeches which are recommending to other nations the abolition of trade barriers as a necessary preliminary to the restoration of the prosperity of Europe, but we have ourselves, in spite of the opposition of a good many of us, within the last year erected barriers to interfere with trade between ourselves and continental customers. Part II of the Act provides that in certain circumstances a duty of 33⅓ per cent. was to be imposed on certain imports. Those who desired the imposition were required to lay their ease before a Committee, and if the Committee found certain cir- 702 cumstances proved it became the duty of the Board of Trade—that was clearly understood in the House—to make an Order, submit it to the House, and if the Order was approved by the House, to impose the duty on the articles. Such a case actually arose. The manufacturers of fabric gloves, among others, came before a Committee set up by the President of the Board of Trade, and after a great deal of evidence had been heard, so far as evidence could be heard under the Act—some of the most material evidence could not be heard at all, as I will show later—the Committee on the 22nd of January made a recommendation to the right hon. Gentleman. We understand that that recommendation was in favour of the imposition of a duty upon these goods when imported.

It seems to me quite clear that the intention of the Act was that, in the event of such a recommendation being made, the President of the Board of Trade should make an Order. I am not in favour of the making of such an Order, for I regard the Act as very harmful to the trade of the country. There is, however, no doubt at all that by quotation I could make it quite clear that the House intended that if these cases were proved, and if a recommendation were made by the Committee to the President of the Board of Trade, such an Order should be made. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not make an Order? The 22nd January was the date of the recommendation of the Committee, and three months have elapsed without any Order having been made. Despite repeated inquiries on behalf of those who want a duty and those who oppose a duty no decision of the Government has been announced and, as far as one can make out, no decision has been reached. The reason is quite clear. The Government are in a great difficulty. On the one hand they are required by the Act to make an Order; on the other hand one not undistinguished member of the Government has declared himself publicly to be in favour of the repeal of the Act. The Government's difficulty is that if they make an Order one Member of the Government at least must resign—the hon. Member for Bolton—and if they do not make an Order they stultify their own action and, possibly, embarrass several Members of their own body. The difficulty is that, although it may be in 703 the interests of some manufacturers to impose a duty on these goods, it was discovered in the course of the inquiry that these gloves are made from cotton exported from Lancashire, and the value of the gloves imported is four or five times the value of the cotton exported. The fact is, that these gloves come from Saxony in payment for about five times as much cotton as they contain. That is to say, they come here in payment of an export trade of our own with Saxony which amounts to 90 per cent. of the consumption of cotton by the Saxony manufacturers. These are difficulties which we attempted to point out when the Act as going through this House. We said: "You cannot tinker with this part of trade without throwing the whole machine out of gear."

The Government put in Section 2, subsection (2), that the Committee might consider cases where the article which was to be dutiable was raw material for some further processes. What they did not put into the Act was that articles on which duty was to be imposed might be a great source of revenue to our own exporters, as turns out to be the case with fabric gloves.

The President of the Board of Trade has this difficulty to face. If he does not 704 make an Order, I think it is not using harsh language to say that he will have disappointed, if not misled, a large number of enthusiastic Tariff Reformers who supported him in the scheme. If he does make an Order, he is compelled to deal a very serious blow at the great staple industry of Lancashire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Hon. Members are entitled to express their own opinions against that view, but I am entitled to quote the views of such bodies as the Bolton Chamber of Commerce, and I am entitled to point to the action of the hon. and gallant Member, who is a Government Whip, and who has opposed any such Order and has paired in favour of the repeal of this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade is in a quandary. In the meantime he does nothing. Doing nothing is worse than taking either of the other courses. So long as he does not impose a duty English manufacturers cannot put energy or hope into their work. So long as he does not impose a duty, but it is feared that he will do so, the German manufacturers——