§ "That during a period of five years from the passing of an Act for giving effect to this Resolution there shall be charged on the importation of the following articles into Great Britain or Northern Ireland a duty of customs of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article, that is to say:
§ Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding;
§ Gloves cut out of woven or knitted material consisting in whole or in part of cotton and sewn up and known as fabric gloves, and material for such gloves cut out ready for sewing."
§
This Resolution relates to gloves, which have also been the subject of exhaustive examination by a Committee of Inquiry under the White Paper procedure. In one case, that of leather gloves, a great deal of the evidence was put forward by the Joint Industrial Council. The glove industry, as the Committee find and as common sense would dictate, really is one industry. The leather glove industry is one of the oldest in the country. The fabric glove industry is a new industry, a War and post-War industry. But, new as that industry is, it is interesting to see from the Report of the Committee that, as far as capacity goes, it has been making considerable progress. The Committee say in paragraph 8 of the Report:
We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years, and we are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad.
§ That is an important finding, because it will be remembered that when this industry was discussed here some years ago there was a great deal of criticism of the 2568 industry on the ground that it was doubtful whether it had the capacity to turn out a suitable article, reasonably comparable with that of foreign competitors. To-day I do not believe that anyone has any doubt that the industry is fully capable of producing an article which compares favourably with that of any other country.
§ Mr. P. HARRISIn price?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI hope that the hon. Member will let me develop my argument. I am speaking about quality, but I will come to price in a minute, and the hon. Member who, I am sure, has read the Report, will see that the whole Report shows that, in price, the British manufacturer cannot compete. The Committee will also remember that the applicants put forward a claim for a safeguarding duty, not only in respect of fabric gloves, but in respect of glove fabric also. The latter the Committee rejected on its merits, and no proposal relating to it figures in the Resolution. The Committee say in paragraph 12:
We have considered the question of glove fabric, and are of opinion that the Applicants have not established a claim for a duty. We are satisfied that British manufacturers can produce glove fabric comparable with that manufactured in Germany.They go on to say:An additional reason for refusing the claim for a duty on glove fabric is that in the event of a duty being imposed on fabric gloves, employment is likely to be more substantially increased by permitting imports of fabrics to British glove manufacturers.I should say, in fairness, that one member of the Committee dissented from that finding, and the other two members were in favour of it. The Government did not feel justified in proposing a duty in the case of glove fabric.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNThis is the first case where we have had a minority finding. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, as he attaches so much importance to the findings of the Committee, exactly what weight is to be attached to the finding of the minority member? Does that minority finding carry any weight with him at all, or no weight?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt depends entirely on circumstances. Generally the 2569 Report of a majority will carry more weight than a Report of a minority. As a vote of a majority carries more weight than a vote of a minority, one would certainly be called upon to justify by a full explanation the adoption of the proposals of a minority rather than the proposals of a majority. However, that does not arise here, because the Government accepted the proposal of the majority in this case. I am entitled to make this observation with regard to the findings. The fact that the Committee refused to recommend a duty on glove fabric is strong evidence of the thoroughness of the inquiry. One comes next to the question whether the industry is one of substantial importance. The leather glove industry employed over 10,000 people, and the fabric glove industry, while it used to employ a good many thousands, to-day employs only 1,800. The glove industry, taken as a whole, undoubtedly is an industry of substantial importance, and the Committee have so reported.
Then we come to the question of com-petition. Both in regard to leather and fabric gloves the Committee report that the rate of imports is abnormal, and I think that on the facts which are set out in the Report there is no doubt that they were correct in that conclusion. The trade returns of imports since the time when the Committee reported show the tendency to abnormality, and they have been increasing and increasing considerably. The Committee draw attention, in paragraph 15 of the Report, to the tremendous increase of imports from Italy, and. to a much less degree, from France and Czechoslovakia. The Report was made some months ago. When one follows up the imports during more recent months, one finds that the imports of leather gloves have been at an even more excessive rate.
For instance, if you compare June, 1925, with June, 1924, the figures are 115,000 dozen pairs, as against 71,000; in July, 99,000, as against 80,000; in August, 121,000, as against 79,000; and in September, 100,000, as against 96,000. If you take the imports up to date, in the first three-quarters of the year 1925, the total imports of leather gloves were 887,000 dozen, and if you assume from the increase of imports that there will be a similar rate for the remaining three 2570 months, you get a rate of 1,183,000 dozen gloves. Considering that, as the Committee found, the consumption of gloves has gone down since before the War, that shows that there is a steadily increasing and abnormal importation into this country. The Committee point out another aspect of their case which is very relevant. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said yesterday: "You have to look at the general trend in these matters." The Committee point out, in paragraph 18, that though the general consumption of gloves in this country has risen by 100 per cent. since 1920, the British manufacturer has only maintained his 1920 production. That is a very remarkable fact. The imports are still rising.
§ Mr. SEXTONIf the imports are increasing, how can the right hon. Gentleman pretend to safeguard industry?
Sir P. CUIMLIFFE-LISTERBecause I propose to put on a countervailing duty in order that the British industry may be able to compete on equal terms. The imports are progressively increasing, and if we were getting our fair share of the total trade in this country, we should be doing a great deal more than we were doing in 1920. If the House assents to this duty, I have no doubt that we shall in future years do a much larger proportion of the trade. The Committee considered quite properly whether the gloves which are coming in are, generally speaking, gloves which this country can manufacture, and they found that that is, generally speaking, true. In paragraph 19 the Committee report:
The evidence submitted to us indicated that there are many types of gloves imported which are not at present produced in this country, but we are satisfied that many of these were produced here before the War, and could be made to-day if the industry were safeguarded from unfair competition.Then the Committee reaffirmed that the importation is in abnormal quantities. They go on to consider fabric gloves and they say that this must be treated as a post-War industry—a very reasonable statement. I may remind the Committee in this connection of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) last night that we had to look not at 1913, but at the years after the War. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to that in all cases, but in the case of an industry 2571 which has developed during the War or which has been established during the War—a new industry—it is certain that what you have to look at is the general trend of the post-War years. The position was this: that in 1920 this industry which had built itself up during the War, was producing 84 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption and the imports were 16 per cent. To-day the position is more than reversed, because in 1924 11.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom consumption was British manufacture, whereas 88.2 per cent. was foreign manufacture. The rapid rate of the increase in imports in this industry is shown in the tables in the Report up to the date at which the Committee was holding its investigation, but in the first period of this year no less than 1,730,000 dozens of these gloves were imported into this country as against 954,000 in 1924, which is a very excessive importation.Then we come to the question of prices. The committee find as a fact that the prices at which these gloves are being sold is in fact below the cost at which the British manufacturer can make them, and they find that these prices apply to gloves which are either directly competitive or are alternatives. They find, in paragraph 25, that unemployment in the industry is serious, is great, and is growing and they set out figures which show that to be the case.
§ Mr. WALLHEADI thought that was denied.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think it was not denied even by the opponents of the duty.
§ Mr. WALLHEADDo not the Government deny that there is an increase in unemployment?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe fact that trade is improving in other industries surely makes out all the stronger case for this industry. If, in spite of a rise in the trade barometer, this industry is still in a state of depression that is surely an additional reason for safeguarding it. With regard to the leather glove section, the Joint Industrial Council state that, whereas in 1913 there were 9,321 workers on full time, in 1924 that number had fallen to 7,032 who were only working 40 hours a week. That is borne out by the figures showing the number 2572 of apprentices in proportion to the number of cutters in the trade now, as compared with the period before the War. The figures in regard to fabric gloves are far worse. Whereas in the boom period of this industry about 11,000 people were employed, it has fallen to under 2,000 and the committee find that wages are lower in Italy, Germany, Belgium and France. They find in addition that longer hours are worked in those countries and that there is a much greater proportion of outworkers in the leather glove industry, which means that overhead charges are lower in Italy because the factories are proportionately smaller.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs that because Mussolini destroyed the trade unions?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI understand that it has been the custom and the habit in Italy under the Socialist-Radical and Mussolini regimes. Whatever may be the cause, it is a fact which has a distinct relation to competition in this country. The Committee find that both leather and fabric glove industries are efficient and that a duty imposed upon cither leather or fabric gloves could not and would not injure any other industry. Obviously there is not an industry which uses gloves in its process of manufacture. They find on the other hand that the greater the production of gloves the more help is given to several subsidiary industries, such as box-making and button-making. It will be remembered that this duty was under consideration on a previous occasion, and the question was raised as to whether a duty on fabric gloves would not possibly inflict an injury on the Lancashire yarn trade. It was a remarkable claim, because it seems very obvious that the Germans bought yarn in Lancashire, not because of any peculiar wish to confer a favour upon Lancashire, but because it was the best yarn. Therefore it paid the Germans to buy it, and they were not likely to buy inferior yarn merely because their gloved were taxed. It was also pointed out that, in so far as gloves were going to be made in this country instead of in Germany, the yarn would be consumed here, and in so far as they were not made here the yarn would still be sold in Germany.
The fear that the yarn trade would be affected has not been borne out by experience, because those who follow the 2573 general trend of exports in the cotton trade will have observed—and it is not a very satisfactory thing to observe—that whereas exports of piece goods are not at all on the scale on which they were before the War, it is the export of yarn of the finest kind, such as fabric glove yarn, which is the most successful branch of the Lancashire trade. I remind hon. Members of that fact because, although we went into it before and although the House of Commons then came to the conclusion that the fear expressed was groundless, experience has borne out the judgment which the House of Commons pronounced. The Committee considered whether a specific duty or an ad valorem duty should be imposed, and they came to the conclusion that an ad valorem duty was at once the fairest and most workable, and I am bound to say that all Customs experience confirms that view on both grounds. They say in the Report:
The Applicants both for leather and fabric gloves asked for a specific duty, but on carefully examining their proposals we have arrived at the conclusion that on account of the wide range of prices it would be extremely difficult to arrive at an equitable rate. … After an examination of the prices of many kinds of British and foreign leather and fabric gloves we consider that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. would be reasonably sufficient to countervail the unfair competition. We therefore recommend that a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem should be imposed for at least five years.I think that is a reasonable finding and after considerable consultation, I am advised that not only would a specific duty put a small tax on the most highly-priced article and a relatively large tax on the lower-priced article, but that if you were to try to make it proportionate you would have such a complicated duty that it would be almost impossible to administer it and in administration what you want is simplicity and speed. Therefore the Resolution proposes that the duty should be the ad valorem duty recommended by the Committee, and that it should apply to leather and fur gloves —fur gloves were treated throughout the inquiry as leather and they are always made of leather and fur—with the exception that it is not intended to tax-woollen gloves which only have leather bindings and trimmings or astrakhan gloves—gloves made from an imitation of astrakhan wool fabric.
§ Captain BENNWill motor-drivers' gloves be taxed?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STERIf they are made of leather or of fur and leather, yes.
§ Captain BENNWill housemaids' gloves be taxed?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERit is also proposed to charge the duty on fabric gloves as recommended. The condition of this industry is well known to many hon. Members. In the case of leather gloves it is, as I say, an old established industry; in the case of fabric gloves the industry has built itself up recently and has been progressing and making itself more efficient. I submit that a clear case has been made out in respect of both classes of gloves and that the Committee should pass the Resolution.
§ The CHAIRMANBefore we proceed further it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say something as to these Amendments and as to the course I suggest. It will be remembered that yesterday, on an Amendment as to duration, I allowed a general discussion, not only on the particular Resolution then before the Committee, but on all the Resolutions. Of course, that ruling will not apply on the present occasion, and if I call the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and others, to leave out "during a period of five years" and insert "for a period of twelve months," the discussion would have to be limited to the question of duration. Lower down on the Paper the Committee will note that there are two Amendments, one to leave out lines 5 to 7 and the other to leave out lines 8 to 10. These lines refer to the different classes of gloves, and I suggest that on the first of these Amendments a general discussion should be taken and that, as has often been done before, there should be separate Divisions on the two Questions.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI think we might agree with the suggestion which you, Sir, have made, on condition that the discussion of these other Amendments is not altogether prohibited, but that you will allow at least some discussion on them. 2575 The Chairman said just now there should be two separate Divisions. I assume he did not mean to exclude discussion?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANMay I also point out the disadvantage the Committee will be under if the suggestion you, Sir, have made, be adopted? The President of the Board of Trade has quite rightly taken the opportunity to make a general statement on the whole question of the new duty to be imposed on leather and fabric gloves. If there is to be no general reply until we come to the last two Amendments on the Paper, it may mean that the general reply cannot be given, perhaps, until early to-morrow morning, and there will be no record outside this House of the discussion that has taken place, and it does put those who are criticising the duty under a very grave disadvantage. May I also, with due respect, suggest to you that when you say we might have a general discussion on the last two Amendments, the general discussion should be permissible on these without any special privilege granted to us from the Chair. It is necessary that we should, as far as possible, deal with the statement of the President of the Board of Trade at the earliest possible moment. For that reason I hope you will not rule too harshly the limits under which the discussion may take place on the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
§ The CHAIRMANThere are two principles I have to bear in mind. The first is that there cannot be the same discussion on two different Amendments, and the other is that I can only allow a general discussion on a specific Amendment which does not cover the whole field, by general consent. I should not mind if there were a general discussion on the first Amendment, but if that be so, I should have to confine the discussion on the two last Amendments to the differences between the two different kinds of gloves, and the incidence of the duties on them in particular. But if it be the general wish and for the convenience of the Committee that we should take the general discussion on the first Amendment, I am quite ready to meet the general convenience.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI hope the Committee will adopt the view you have just 2576 explained. In that case, may I take the opportunity of moving the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. LANSBURYBefore that is done, may I ask when there will be an opportunity of discussing the proposals as a whole? Supposing there were no Amendments moved, and the right hon. Gentleman moved this Resolution, I take it we would be able to discuss it as it stands I want to ask whether Members will have the opportunity of discussing the proposals without being obliged to move an Amendment?
Captain SHAWWill that not mean a general discussion on the Resolution now, and then a general discussion on the first half and a general discussion on the second half? Could not both be discussed at the same time?
§ The CHAIRMANThat was my suggestion, but I cannot waive the rule of Order except by general consent. if there were no Amendments, we could forthwith have a discussion on the Resolution, but, as I pointed out yesterday, that is a very unsatisfactory procedure where there are any Amendments, because at any moment an Amendment may be moved, and that would limit the discussion. I want to suggest some form to meet the general convenience.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIt seems to me a rather immaterial point on what Amendment a general discussion takes place, but I quite see the point raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) that it would be better if we could have the general discussion first, because if Amendments are moved on which a general discussion is not permitted, I am afraid the speakers will find a good deal of difficulty in keeping strictly in order. I have, therefore, no objection to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Swansea.
§ The CHAIRMANI will take it that that suits the convenience of the Committee.
§ Mr. LANSBURYDo I take it that on the first Amendment we could discuss the proposal as a whole?
§ The CHAIRMANThat would be so.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the words "during a 2577 period of live years," and to insert instead thereof the words "for a period of twelve months."
In moving this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I may, perhaps, be allowed to make some general observations on this duty. The first observation I desire to make is that we must note once more the absence of any representative of the Treasury.
§ Sir P. CUNL1FFE- LISTERThe Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an explanation at Question time this afternoon that he was unable to be present owing to important negotiations which he has in hand. The Financial Secretary is ill in bed.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIf the right hon. Gentleman had waited for a moment, I should certainly have expressed sympathy with the Financial Secretary. We all know what he has been through in recent times, and nobody in this House has a larger need of our sympathy. But I cannot help pointing out that there is no representative of the Treasury, and that, again, is a departure from the precedent of three generations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is quite true, has other important work elsewhere, but none of his work anywhere transcends the importance of his work in the House of Commons, and if it be inconvenient that his work elsewhere should lie on one side, then the Order Paper of the House should have been amended, and the subject put off until a day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was free. I am afraid I do not see any attempt on the part of the Government to make arrangements to facilitate his presence here, for a very obvious reason. It is well known the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not sympathise with Protection, and, what is more, he has expressed himself so strongly in recent years on the subject, that I must remind the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues of exactly what was said about his proposals, even so recently as the year 1923. In dealing with some of the proposals then before them, he pointed out how foolish he thought the Protectionist doctrines. He talked about the tendencies, which are obviously present in the minds of the President of the Board of Trade and other Protectionists, 2578 of the constantly flowing stream of imports into this country, and he used, amongst other things, this rather characteristic sentence. He said:
The Protectionists see the river flowing to the ocean. They wonder anxiously how long will it be before the earth is all drained up.And then he went on to say to his hearers in Leicester—this was in 1923—His advice to his hearers is to pause before they adopt any of these half-baked, ill-thought-out adventurous schemes. The idea that unemployment is caused by foreign imports is absurd.It is with that evidently ringing in his ears still, but I have no doubt with a warm place in his heart, he finds it inconvenient to be here to support the proposals put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to get up at Question time and say he accepts everything the President says. If he does accept everything the President says, then I congratulate the President on having made a very distinguished convert. But there are a great many Members on his own side of the House who are not quite sure of his conversion, who are not quite sure of their man, and one reason why the President of the Board of Trade has to deal with this matter, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose duty it obviously is, is that they know the President is a sincere Protectionist, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been everything by turn except a Protectionist.This matter cannot be dealt with merely on the merits of whether leather gloves are more worn or less worn, or whether fabric gloves are imported in larger or less quantities, or whether the Bolton spinners are to find their consumers here or in Chemnitz. The question is whether or not we are to have our Revenue used mainly for trade purposes, and not for Revenue purposes. The object of this duty is not to add to the Revenue. If it were, this would have been the job of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is because the right hon. Gentleman hopes there will be no revenue from it, and that it will keep foreign goods out of the country, that he is advocating this duty to-day. But it is none the less a Revenue Measure, and one which is likely to bring far less to the Exchequer than it will extract from the consumers of these arti- 2579 cles. As my hon. Friend pointed out on the Resolution relating to cutlery yesterday, the amount coming into the Treasury will be a trivial sum compared with the rise in price that these duties will bring about. The tendency, therefore, of this financial arrangement is to place a burden on the subject here out of all proportion to the revenue gained to the Exchequer. The matter of the volume of trade is one which the President has gone into this afternoon, and the Committee will observe that in arguing these cases, there is no one standard to apply to all of them. For instance, the figures of 1913 are not to be taken as the standard for each one of the five duties. That is not convenient. The year 1913 is inconvenient for one, so the year 1920 has to be taken. The year 1920 is inconvenient for others, so they revert again to 1913.
5.0 P.M.
There is no recognised standard. There is a jockeying of the dates. The standards are put up or down simply to suit the argument that has to be faked in order to make out a case for these separate articles. The case that is made for the glove industry as to abnormal imports is one of the thinnest of the whole lot. If 1913 be taken, it is a very remarkable fact that the present foreign imports into this country are far less than in 1913. It is quite true there are fewer gloves being worn in this country than in 1913, but import duties or the absence of them have nothing to do with that. One reason why people did without gloves during the War was that they were far too dear, and there was a considerable change even in the habit as to the carrying of gloves during that period. It has nothing to do with whether they were foreign or British commodities. These abnormal quantities, which appear to be the only justification the Committee could find for placing an import duty on these gloves, can only be reached by using the year 1920. If the year 1913 be taken, the whole case breaks down. Let the Committee realise what this means. It means that an industry of this kind, and the users of the commodity, are to be the victims, not of a great change in policy, not of the adoption of one set of great principles or another. They are to be the victims of a choice between one year and another, whether 1913 or 1920. Surely a move flimsy ground on which to base 2580 a change in the custom of our finance, in the price to consumers could scarcely be conceived. The mere choice of one year or another is to decide the whole thing. The President of the Board of Trade goes through the Reports, and he adopts throughout the findings of the Committee I am afraid that is not likely to bring conviction to the minds of people who like myself, realise how the Committee is composed. I have the greatest respect for my friend, Sir Charles Stewart, but he has always been a convinced Protectionist. The other members of the Committee are not people of impartial mind at all. I must say that the lady who was a member of the Committee seemed to take a far wider view of British industry than her two colleagues, for she was wise enough to suggest that if you put import duties on fabric gloves, you should at least protect the interests of others who are supplying the raw material for these industries, and insist on making provision for these industries. Whenever we embark on one of these experiments of imposing a duty in the direction of helping one industry, you injure some other industry.
The fact is you are distributing your benefits without any equitable ground whatever, and that is done partly because the organisation of the particular industry concerned is good, partly because it has advocates who state its case effectively, partly because owing to the luck of the last General Election the President of the Board of Trade happens to be a Protectionist, partly because he sticks to his principles and selects a Protectionist committee to deal with this trade which seeks to get an advantage.
Let us look at the direction from which the danger is coming. It does not appear yet to have come in any great volume from Germany, though I presume that-German gloves will be one of the topics which the President of the Board of Trade will have to discuss once more with the representative of Germany when he is dealing with the German Treaty. In 1924 Germany sent us 34,600 dozen pairs of leather gloves as compared with 341,000 dozen pairs of leather gloves in 1913. France in 1913 sent us 466,000 dozen pairs, and in 1924 the figure dropped to 210,000 dozen pairs. The imports from Austria 2581 and Hungary have almost disappeared. Yet in 1913 they sent us 369,000 dozen pairs. That is qualified by the fact that there has been an increase in imports from Czechoslovakia, but since the War the imports from Czechoslovakia have risen to only 115,000 dozen pairs. The total for all three countries is less than one-third of the amount sent by Austria and Hungary before the War, and Austria and Hungary are sending practically nothing now. There is a very large increase in the quantity of gloves sent from the United States of America and from some of the other foreign countries, including Italy. The whole case for this proposal is based on Italy and practically on nothing else.
It cannot be based on the United States of America. No representative of the Board of Trade would suggest that wages in the United States of America are lower than in Great Britain or that the American exchange is depreciated. It is impossible to say that the burdens thrown on American manufacturers are less than those thrown on manufacturers in this country, so that a case cannot be made against the United States. You cannot base the case on Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia because the volume of business is down and not up. It cannot be based on France because the imports from France are less than half what they used to be. It cannot be based on Germany because the imports from Germany are only about one-tenth of what they were. It can only be based on Italy. So the whole of this proposal is really aimed against Italy. The case against Italy is not enough to justify a general tariff. This is a general tariff. It applies to all countries. It is remarkable to find the President of the Board of Trade taking the line now that because there is, according to his ideas, a case against Italy, therefore we should apply the duties to all the other countries to which not one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper can be applied.
There is another aspect of the matter which we did not discuss yesterday, and which ought to be brought to the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. That is, the effect of the accumulation of small duties upon the rapidity with which our trade can be 2582 done. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that one effect of the silk duties has been to choke up many of the warehouses of the Port of London. One thing that has been the making of the Port of London has been the rapidity with which cargoes can be shipped and transhipped. Now this is interfered with because the Customs authority find it so difficult to get through all the goods that have to be examined, and large numbers of bales of goods are being held up, to be subjected to examination, and the warehouses are chock full of goods which cannot be moved so rapidly. In Manchester and Liverpool exactly the same thing is taking place. You have got the same thing at Hull, and yet there is no representative of the Customs present to tell us anything about it. It is the business of some representative of the Treasury. We might have had at least the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to let us know about this and explain to us how the Customs have been running during the last 12 months.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to put sand into the machinery of trade. He is going to impede trade. Whatever little benefit may be done to the individual trade by the proposed duty, the fact is that every one of these duties will have the disadvantage of adding to the friction of trade as a whole. I am not thinking merely of a few bales of gloves being held up, but of all the rest of the goods which are held up behind them. These proposals taken as a whole, in conjunction with the silk duties embodied in the last Budget, have done a great deal to necessitate an additional amount of working capital being incorporated into every business. You cannot have goods lying waiting for months without having a large amount of working capital with which to handle them. The proper direction to take, both by the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, is to facilitate transfer of every kind and the exchange of commodities with the greatest possible rapidity. That higher speed would add to the prosperity of this country far more than the cumulative effect of all these duties, and achieve what is in the minds of a great many people who do not care a. fig about cutlery, gloves or anything else, but who 2583 are anxious for a large turnover of our trade as rapidly as possible.
I object to these duties as a whole. The whole tendency of this policy is to turn the mind of the business men, the manufacturer, away from the vital matters of their industry. They are being taught not to think of keeping back a large amount of their profits to add to the capital expenditure on their works. They are not being encouraged, under this scheme, to renew their machinery. There is no incentive under any of these arrangements to incorporate into their staff in their partnerships and as directors or managers the very best brains they can buy. They are told that the difficulties and deficiencies can be made up by import duties. They are practically being invited not to deal with the real fundamentals of a successful business but to go to the Board of Trade with a specially prepared brief, and press on the President by every means in their power that they want to get assistance through import duties. Then the next thing which they have to do is not once more to improve their machinery, to get the best tools that the world can produce, but to get hold of the best counsel which money can buy in the Temple, and then they have to come to Palace Yard and state their case, when they ought to be working out their own problems in their own works and warehouses.
It is the diversion of such great numbers of business men from the real basis of prosperity to purely political channels which is one of the most deleterious results of the policy on which the Government has embarked The Committee was the committee selected by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that it has worked to the best of its belief in an equitable and impartial spirit, but directly you get into the region of import duties you must shut out of your mind all idea of being impartial. I would not dream of standing up in this House and saying that I was impartial on the subject of import duties. I believe them to be most objectionable and I shall say so on every possible occasion, because I believe that they will check the advancement of great industries, that they will place obstacles in the way of trade as a whole and that they will divert the attention 2584 of business men from purely business to political channels, and will lead to the corruption of our electoral as well as of our administrative system.
§ Sir ROBERT SANDERSThe right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down shows by his remarks that he and those associated with him have learned nothing and forgotten nothing as a result of what has happened during the last few years. It is only on the occasion of a bye-election that we find their accredited representatives coming forward and advocating a purely Protective duty, and doing so with a very singular want of success.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANHear, hear!
§ The CHAIRMANAs he was approaching his peroration the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) got somewhat outside the terms of the Motion under discussion, and I was about to intervene just as he finished, but I think that I may give a warning on the subject to other right hon. Gentlemen.
§ Captain BENNWould it not be in order for the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) to give us his view about the extension of import duties to agriculture?
§ The CHAIRMANCertainly not.
§ Sir R. SANDERSWhat I should be interested to know is what is the attitude on this question of the official Opposition, because this case was brought before the Committee by representatives of the workers. They have a Joint Industrial Council in that industry, and the case in favour of the duty was put forward by that Joint Industrial Council. There were three unions involved, the Glovers' Union, the National Union of General Workers and the Workers' Union, and representatives of all those unions supported this application for the imposition of duties and they went further. I am always very glad if anyone expresses sympathy with the objects which I have in view, but I am much more glad and much more convinced of his earnestness if he not only gives me his sympathy, but gives me a subscription for my association, and that is what the representatives of these unions have done, because the expenses 2585 of making this application were borne, not only by the manufacturers, but also by the trade unions concerned. On the first day on which this application was argued, the actual representative of the industry was not a manufacturer, not a paid counsel, but a representative of one of the unions concerned. It is true that afterwards, when counsel were briefed by the opponents of the application, it became necessary to brief learned counsel on the other side as well, but in the initial stage the case was actually conducted by a trade union representative.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated fully and clearly on what the case is based. There is no doubt whatever about the stringency of foreign competition in this case. The figures prove it clearly enough. It is a curious instance, because you have at the same time a declining home consumption and very largely increased foreign imports. The reasons why the foreign manufacturer is able to beat the English glove manufacturer were all brought before the Committee. They are because the foreign hours are longer and the foreign wages are lower, and it is the fact that in the past the English industry had already been cut out in the lighter forms of gloves, but up till now it has been able to hold its own with the heavier leather gloves, and it is only in recent years, since the War, that the competition in these heavier leather gloves has become so strenuous as to make it necessary that a duty should be imposed if this trade is to be preserved for our people at all. The Committee found that the home factories were efficient. Discussing the case of cutlery yesterday, an hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench stated that the conditions in the cutlery factories were not all that they should be, but as far as I know—and I have seen something of them—the conditions in the glove factories, at all events in my county, are certainly efficient and up to date, and I have never heard the slightest complaint in the county about the accommodation of the workpeople in those factories.
§ Sir R. SANDERSYes, they make their own conditions. I will say a word 2586 about that in a moment. The Committee found the case proved. The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) adopted an argument which I think was hardly worthy of him. As the Committee has decided against his case, he abuses the Committee. He says that it was not really an impartial Committee. Well, I do not like the spirit which abuses the umpire when he gives a decision against you.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI did not abuse him. I said they were Protectionists, and well known to be Protectionists, before they were appointed.
§ Sir R. SANDERSYou said they were not impartial.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIt is no more abuse to describe a gentleman as a Protectionist than it would be for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to describe me as a Free Trader.
§ Sir R. SANDERSI am quite ready to withdraw the word "abuse" if the right hon. Gentleman objects to it, but I do not think you can cast any worse reflection upon a Committee that is set up for a judicial function than to say it is not impartial, and I think it is an unworthy thing to say. At all events, this Committee has found that the case is proved, and I do not see how they could arrive at any other conclusion. The conditions had been laid down for them. The conditions that they had to decide in a judicial manner had been before this House and decided by this House, and all that the Committee had to do was to decide whether the case was proved or not. They have decided that it was proved, and I do not see, as I say, how they could have arrived at any other conclusion on the facts before them.
I want to say a word about the opposition. The opposition which came before this Committee sprang entirely from the big wholesale houses. The retailers considered the matter and formally arrived at the conclusion that they were not going to oppose an application. I do not pretend that this is a big industry, or that a duty such as is proposed in this Resolution is a big thing, but it does affect a few thousand workpeople, and it does affect what I think we ought to promote in every way we can, and that is a country industry. I believe that it 2587 is for the good of the country that we should have these industries, not only in our black, smoky towns, but in the countryside as well, and when you find an industry that is already established in an agricultural county, as this gloving industry is established in Somerset—and about half the gloves produced in this country are made in Somerset—I think that all those who talk about bringing people back to the land, or keeping people on the land, which, I believe, is the latest anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman's party, ought to grasp every means that they can, when they get a going industry and an efficient industry established in a country district, of seeing that that industry should be enabled to remain there. It is good for the people who work in the industry, it is good for them that they should live in healthy surroundings, among green fields and not in the smoky towns, and it is good for those in the surrounding districts as well.
One of the worst troubles—and I am sure this will appeal to the Opposition— in the country districts is the low rate of wages paid to the agricultural industry. If there is one thing that can tend to raise those wages it is a competing industry in the villages that is well paid, and you get that in the gloving industry. Having an industry of that sort raises the standard of life in the whole district. The glover is drawing £3 and £4 a week. The village that I know best, where the gloving industry is going on, is the most prosperous village of its sort in the whole neighbourhood.
§ Sir R. SANDERSMilborne Port, and if you speak to anyone in that neighbourhood they will tell you so. The fact that men are able to earn high wages in the factories, and that the wives and daughters of those engaged in agriculture are able very often to earn a bit by doing out-work from the factory, raises the whole standard of living in the district. I do not think we ought to throw that away if we can possibly avoid it. It has another effect as well. Having a manufacture of this sort in a country neighbourhood tends to keep the local arrangements of that neighbourhood up to date, and at this village of which I am 2588 speaking, directly the housing scheme came on, houses were started on a business-like footing, and I think it was one of the most successful housing schemes that was initiated in the whole county.
Another reason why we ought to do everything we can to keep these village industries going is the question of apprenticeships for boys. We do not want boys to leave the country if they can possibly make a living there, and this gloving industry gives them a chance of doing so. At the present time they can barely take on one in 20 as apprentices, because the trade is actually going down month by month. By the agreement of the industrial council, the standard number to take on is one in five, and those who are engaged in the industry inform me that, if this duty is put on, they will be able to take on one in five as apprentices from the putting on of the duty. Who will be the worse, supposing this duty is put on? A few people may have to pay a little more for their gloves. I am not going to dispute that— it stands to reason that it should be so— but if they do, I think the sacrifice they will have to make in paying a little extra for their gloves will be very well compensated, indeed, by giving more employment and prosperity in a whole district, and whatever expense that may be, it will be very cheaply bought.
§ Mr. KELLYI had not intended to join in the discussion at this early stage, but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, I think it is only fair to the Committee that a different view, as to the action of the joint industrial council, should be placed before it. We were told that the trade unions were unanimous upon this question.
§ Sir R. SANDERSI did not say so. I said that the trade unions supported it and subscribed towards it.
§ Mr. KELLYI am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions were not unanimous.
§ Sir R. SANDERSI did not say they were not unanimous. The hon. Member is not right to misquote me. I do not know whether they were unanimous or not and I have no means of knowing.
§ Mr. KELLYI quite accept that. It shows, at any rate, that this Committee is not asked to accept that the whole of the trade union people and the workers employed in the gloving industry have expressed a desire for this Safeguarding Act to be operated in their interests. I am an officer of the union that probably has the largest number of people employed in the gloving trade. I have had some connection, too, as a candidate—I do not know whether it is permissible to say that here—in the part of Somerset to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I can say that the executive of the trade union has never at any moment during the years that it has been connected with the gloving trade agreed with a demand or a claim being made for the application of the Safeguarding of Industries Act to the gloving trade.
§ Sir R. SANDERSThey have subscribed, anyway.
§ Mr. KELLYI will deal with that in a moment, If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had known something about the Joint Industrial Council he would have been much more careful in his statement. We certainly are a member of that Joint Industrial Council. We have, I think, four or five representatives. On occasion I myself have attended meetings of the kind referred to. The majority of those present decided that they would subscribe to some of the expenses consequent upon this particular application. The employers are also members of that Council. The majority decided to find a portion of the expenses, and, accepting majority rule, we have had to pay our share of the expenses, whilst disagreeing from the whole scheme.
§ Sir R. SANDERSMajority rule!
§ Mr. KELLYThe majority of the representatives on the Council, not the majority of the workpeople! We were told that the case was presented by a member of a trade union, an officer. I would have liked to hear the name of that representative. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to give us the name; probably I might be able to guess it. I do not know whether it is permissible in this House to do so, but I should imagine that it would be the Secretary of the Council who happens to be a member of a trade 2590 union, and who, I believe, did appeal before this particular Committee. I have had some experience of that particular representative if he is the one to which reference has been made. At a bye-election in Yeovil some years ago that particular gentleman assisted a friend of the right hon. Gentleman across the floor by opposing me at that particular time. There are people, even trade unionists, who make mistakes sometimes, and there are others—I am not suggesting members of the Conservative party—and a mistake has been made on this occasion. Certainly, so far as we are concerned, we are opposed to the present proposal, not only because we see no advantage in it for Somerset, but no advantage in it for the glove makers of Oxfordshire, or Essex, or Devonshire.
I was hoping that, we would have heard from the President of the Board of Trade how this 33 per cent. is going to help these glove makers. If this 33 per cent. is placed on, it wall increase the price of the gloves. Does that mean that we are going to have the opportunity in this country of manufacturing more gloves? The answer to that, I think, is contained in the Report. We find in the Report— I do not mean that I have waited for this "Report, because employers have told me of it. They do not complain so much of foreign competition as of the retailers in London. These retailers charge something like twice the amount that they pay to the manufacturer when they purchase the gloves—twice the price for gloves that have only travelled from Yeovil to London, or from Oxfordshire to London. Then we are told that we cannot carry on this industry unless there is this tariff of 33 per cent. placed upon the foreign gloves. It is not a tariff for which the employers are asking. What the employers want is to keep out the whole of the gloves made in any other part of the world. They have said that quite openly, while at the same time they have neglected to help forward their own export trade. They have lost it by not taking care of it in those parts of the world where they have had some control in the years that are gone.
But I was interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to why we should favour these country industries. One would imagine that in all these glove works, these men, women and girls 2591 are living and working under ideal conditions. One would imagine that everyone of these people working in Somerset were under much happier conditions than, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman himself, "Those who were working in the smoky towns." People in that part of the world are living under conditions of housing as bad as anything you can find in the towns.
§ Sir R. SANDERSDo you see that in the Report?
§ Mr. KELLYI see that in many parts of the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman. I have seen conditions in Somersetshire as bad or worse than those that can be found in any of the big cities. But that is not to say that we should save a particular industry because it is a country industry. One, however, would imagine that the wages paid to these people are of such a level that we can feel proud of them. I notice that neither the President of the Board of Trade or the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke told us what were the wages paid in this industry. Neither told us about the wages paid in other countries. Neither have told us of their long hours. We had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who told us, though he could not prove it, that the workpeople were engaged for 40 hours a week abroad. When we questioned that statement we were told that the Department had no means of knowing how many hours a week were worked by the outworkers engaged in making gloves, or of the material that they took away from the factory. It is upon that kind of evidence that this Committee of Ways and Means has to come to a conclusion—when they do not know the condition of the outworkers, or how long they work. Despite that fact, and that the Committee have no knowledge as to how long the outworkers in other countries are working, we are asked to pass these proposals! And that is the kind of evidence that we are asked to support this Committee's findings on. It is not fair to the House. It is not fair to the workpeople. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite would appreciate it if they had anything to do with the industry. It is not fair 2592 to the workpeople to hold out to them hopes that this industry is going to be a prosperous one in the sense of making huge profits, and prosperous in the sense of finding plenty of work. We have been told that as the first object is to find work for the workpeople, that if the 33 per cent, tariff is imposed, then the glove cutters will be benefitted, and that instead of there being one apprentice for every 21 working, there will be one apprentice for every five. Where is the evidence of that? Who has told hon. Gentlemen that? If the custom of the trade is as suggested opposite, how is it that these are not already employed? In reference to Yeovil and the places round about it, can hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they have not had good work during the last seven or eight years?
§ Mr. GREENETrade is going down!
§ Mr. KELLYI should, at any rate, like your evidence on that. I should like to hear some of the employers whom I have met in various places. I should like to hear them. To make the statement that a 33 per cent. tariff is going to help us at this time is deluding the people, and is unfair to those engaged in the industry.
§ Mr. GREENEAfter the sitting of last night, I am sure it is the general wish that speeches should not only be few, but short. I feel, however, that as a representative of a district which is perhaps the chief centre of the gloving industry in the country, it is desirable that I should say a few words on the subject now before the Committee. Let me begin by referring to the two points put before the House by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). One was the damage that would be done to an industry in its export trade by protecting it. In order to prove this point he quoted the lace and the silk industries. Then he told us that every manufacturer was in favour of Free Trade for other manufacturers, but desired Protection for himself. Therefore it seems to me, Mr. Hope, that these two arguments are mutually destructive, unless we come to the conclusion that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer alone knows how the manufacturers ought to carry out their business, and unless he is prepared to say that no manufacturer really under- 2593 stands his own business. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor would hot have made these remarks if he had really studied the history of the glove industry. It is a very long history extending over 700 years. With the permission of the Committee I will refer to several periods in that history to show the result of the greatest form of Protection, namely, prohibition of foreign imports, and of mild Protection and Free Trade. In doing that I will give a certain amount of pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for W. Swansea (Mr. Runciman), because he seems to have a rooted objection to any particular year being specified. I will give him the chance to take any year he likes in the 700 in the history of the glove industry.
First of all, I would like to point out that the gloving industry was considered so extremely important for the welfare of the country that, in the 15th century, Parliament actually prohibited the importation of foreign gloves. The result was that trade did so exceedingly well that in the 17th century they could scarcely find enough leather to provide for their output, not only that for home consumption, but for export. The Guild of Leather Workers found it necessary to forbid bootmakers and saddlers to use sheepskin, because otherwise the glovers would be unable to fulfil their home and foreign contracts. I rather stress this point in order to show that protection of an industry does not kill its exports. From that time on the industry became more and more prosperous, and I find that in my own constituency, which in 1808 had a population of only 19,000, there were 6,000 glovers, and a few years later, in 1825, my constituency and the surrounding districts had no less than 30,000 working glovers at work and no unemployed at all. In the following year that panacea beloved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), that panacea for all ills, Free Trade, was introduced, and immediately the gloving industry came to an absolute standstill. Representations were made to Parliament on the matter, and the answer given was that this was a gesture to France, and that it was hoped France would return the compliment. France admired the gesture immensely, but not to the extent of nattering it by 2594 imitation. After several years my predecessor in the representation of Worcester (Colonel Davis), in the year 1832, persuaded Parliament to put a duty on the importation of foreign gloves, and the immediate result was that the industry regained a third of its previous prosperity, but, unfortunately, half the workers remained without work and the other half found themselves on short time. In my constituency the rates doubled.
Coming to later times, I find that in 1842 that tariff was reduced, and in 1860 was abolished altogether, since when the decrease m the prosperity of the industry has been nothing less than calamitous. In the City of Worcester, which I believe to be the biggest gloving constituency in England, there is at the present time only one cutter-apprentice, a most serious thing, because, if that is not remedied, in a short time we shall have neither apprentices to take up the work of those who taught them, nor shall we have those who taught them, because they will have passed on. In the last 100 years the number of glovers in England has dropped from 60,000 working (on full time) in 13 different centres, to less than 10,000 working in only three large centres, at the present time. The output of gloves has dropped from 1,000,000 dozen pairs 100 years ago to less than 500,000 dozen pairs now. When wanting to protect anything, one is generally confronted with the argument that the reason for the decline of any particular industry is a lack of demand. I have been told that with respect to the glove industry by people who have not studied the subject, but 100 years ago, when gloving was at the height of its prosperity, the total demand for home consumption and for export was 1,000,000 dozen pairs, and now that demand, instead of having decreased, has greatly increased.
§ Mr. THURTLEWould the hon. Member tell me if there, has been any increase in population in that period?
§ Mr. GREENEI thought that was so very obvious that it was hardly necessary for me to point it out, nor need I stress that that is the reason for the increase in the demand. In 1913 the demand had increased to over 2,000,000 dozen pairs, and at the present time, in spite of the effects of the War, trade depression and the 2595 smaller buying capacity of the people as a whole, the demand for home consumption and for export is a million and a third dozen pairs. It is for these reasons that I wish to support the Resolution, but before I sit down I should like to answer one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He said three or four things I was very glad to hear, because they are all directly in support of the Resolution. He talked about the opinion of the workers them-selves, the members of the unions. I would like to inform him and the Committee that in my studies on this subject —and the advice I have received has come entirely from working glovers and members of glovers' unions—I have found they are strongly in favour of a Resolution such as this. I meet these people personally, I consult with them, and I see them in their works and in their homes, and I can tell this Committee as an absolute fact that in my constituency, at any rate, they are absolutely solid. The hon. Member knows more about Yeovil than I do, because he had an, unfortunate experience there.
§ Mr. GREENEHe tells us that the glovers in Yeovil are dead against this safeguarding. The hon. Member himself is against safeguarding, his opponent was for safeguarding, and the glovers of Yeovil chose his opponent. Having chosen his opponent they have since then had two opportunities of reconsidering their decision, but they have stuck to their first choice.
§ Mr. KELLYI am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to know if his observation applies to the man whom I first fought, one of the finest men who ever entered this House, the late Mr. Aubrey Herbert. Was he in favour of safeguarding?
§ Mr. GREENEI am afraid I was not in the House with Mr. Aubrey Herbert. I only knew him personally as a friend, and not politically, but I will refer to more modern dates with which, I think, the hon. Member cannot disagree.
§ Mr. GREENEThe hon. Member also stated that the introduction of this duty 2596 would cause an increase in the cost of gloves. He kept asking us for proofs and evidence, but he gave absolutely none himself when he made that statement. I am told by supporters of mine who are interested in the gloving trade as much as he is, that if they can get the works going full time the overhead charges will come down, and as these are reduced so will the cost on each pair of gloves come down, and it is more than probable that owing to this duty a pair of gloves will be sold cheaper than before. That is merely a prophecy. The hon. Member has prophesied one thing, and I tell him my supporters prophesy another thing.
The hon. Member also referred to ideal conditions of working. God knows the conditions are not ideal under which many of these poor people work. I have been in the homes of some of these outworkers and seen poor old women working with their glasses on in a bad light at night sewing, sewing, sewing, doing their best to earn a living; and that is absolutely no reason why we should refuse to give them the help which we believe this duty will give them. The hon. Member wanted to know what hours outworkers worked. It is very hard to discover, but I am informed by the Chairman of the Joint Industrial Council that in my constituency gloving has come to such a pass that in many cases the outworkers only get about two full days work in three weeks; and in addressing the Committee this evening I am hoping to get them to understand the point of view of those who want to do something for the workers of this country. These duties can do absolutely no harm to anybody at all. Gloving is not a key industry. No industry will be ruined if—I say if—the cost of gloves goes up; but, on the other hand, good will be done to other trades—the sheep raisers, the tanners, the button manufacturers, the box manufacturers; and, above all, good will be done to the actual workers in the gloving industry, a people who do not know the meaning of the words ca' canny.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI am sure the House will appreciate the zeal and I think I may say the affection with which the hon. Member has spoken of his constituency. I would like to explain to him what is our point of view with respect to the difficulties amongst his constituents, 2597 of which he has been telling us. He and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him stated that there is unemployment among the makers of leather gloves. It is significant that the Committee which inquired into the subject gave no figures of the actual degree of unemployment in the industry. They satisfied themselves with a statement that there was unemployment in gloving centres, but they gave nothing to indicate that unemployment in the leather glove industry is as great as the unemployment in our great export industries in which the workers will be penalised for the sake of the specially selected case. There is no proof in this Report, and as that was one of the subjects into which the Committee were asked to inquire, we are entitled to say that if they select one industry to be treated apart from other industries we ought to have figures which give some indication that the industry is entitled to exceptional treatment.
§ Mr. GREENESurely you are given figures.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThere are no papers giving figures of unemployment. There are figures of a falling off in demand, which I will deal with in a moment. Our point of view is that although there may be depression, a certain degree of depression, in this industry, this very Report itself contains the proof that that depression is not due to any abnormal import from foreign countries and will not be cured by the duties which this Report suggests.
§ Mr. GREENEMay I ask what a normal import is?
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI shall explain what it is, because that is one of the very questions which this Report discusses, and I have risen to call attention to the finding which the Report presents to us. This Report shows, by the figures on page 7, that what has happened has been a fall in the demand for leather gloves, both in the foreign trade and in the home trade, a fall which one would expect as the result of the general loss in purchasing power since the War. There is nothing remarkable in that, but what this Report also indicates is that a duty of 33▴ per cent. will not in fact touch the causes of that fall and will impose a hardship upon the 2598 poorer sections of this country who cannot afford to pay more for their gloves and will in many cases have to go without gloves altogether. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene) asked me what I meant by "normal imports" and "normal competition." The answer is given by the President of the Board of Trade who laid down the conditions into which these Committees had to examine. Abnormal competition was competition which was abnormal taking as the standard the ordinary normal competition before the War. I say that this Report shows by that test that, so far from the competition being abnormal competition relatively to 1913, it is less to-day than it was before.
The whole thing is very clear. This Report shows that the demand for the sale of gloves has fallen off by 500,000 dozen pairs in this country. It also shows that that has only fallen to the extent of 50,000 dozen pairs in regard to home manufacturers, and the remaining 450,000 dozen pairs fall in the sales has to be taken from the imports into this country. The result is that here you have it in the table that, whereas the imports for consumption of gloves in this country was 75 per cent. in 1913, it has fallen to 67 per cent. to-day, and the proportion of the home consumption according to our home manufacturers has increased in a similar ratio. So that as a matter of fact, according to the very best evidence in the White Paper itself, the whole case breaks down on these grounds alone. These Committees were not asked to inquire whether there were imports of foreign articles into this country, but simply to inquire whether the imports were abnormal and unprecedented in proportion to 1913, and that is found to be contrary to the facts according to the figures given on page 7 of the Report itself.
May I now come to the question of unemployment. It is perfectly clear that there is a certain degree of unemployment and depression in the glove trade. The reason there is that unemployment and depression is simply due to the falling off in the export trade. Hon. Members will find all this on page 7 of the Report where it says that in the exporting trades exports of British manufacture have fallen from 230,000 dozen pairs in 1913 to 40,000 dozen 2599 pairs in 1924. That is to say, it is the export trade in leather gloves which is in a depressed condition. It is that trade which now represents only one-sixth of the quantity and value that it had before the War, and that reduction of exports by five-sixths is, in itself, a complete explanation of the unemployment in that trade.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) quoted and himself suggested that the fall in the export trade in leather gloves was partly due to the fact that the manufacturers of leather gloves had not concentrated sufficient attention on that part of their trade, and therefore the depression is due to the negligence of the manufacturers in this respect. I have just read in the "Manchester Guardian" an interview with the manager of Messrs. Phillips and Company, well known as suppliers to the general drapery trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire. I quite realise why this evidence was not permitted before the Committee, and I think it is evidence which this Committee ought to have. It is worth while reading that opinion to this Committee as to what is the reason for the fall in the export trade and what is the real cause of the unemployment. This manager says:
The English manufacturer should help himself by developing his business on proper lines and taking advantage of the unlimited opportunities awaiting him elsewhere. My duties take me into many countries, and I say emphatically that there are markets for English gloves. The complaint of those who have to buy at present from people who simply speculate in English leather gloves is that no English manufacturer calls upon them. Before the War we had a fine export business with America, and we have lost it through neglect, and it will not be regained by methods of Protection and the raising of prices.That is why the export trade in leather gloves has fallen to one-sixth of its pre-War dimensions. Here you have men in the trade complaining that the manufacturers are losing that export trade through their own unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities that offer, and here you find this Committee reporting that this depression is due to excessive imports which as a matter of fact are lower than they were before the War. Under these circumstances, I cannot see that the Report of this Committee justifies the conclusion at which it arrives. There is one further fact 2600 brought out in this Report. The Report suggests that even if you did attempt to keep out some of these cheaper gloves the fact remains that they are not gloves in effective competition with the heavier and more expensive gloves which we make in this country, and that if you kept them out it would not mean that gloves of a similar quality would be produced here.I see that a gentleman, named Fownes, gave evidence before the Committee, and he said that, so far as a large proportion of the gloves coming into this country were concerned, he did not make them and he could not make them, because it would take years to arrange for his workpeople to make them. It means, that gloves, corresponding to those gloves which are now imported, would not be manufactured in this country. The workers of this country will not say: "Because I cannot get the cheaper gloves, I will buy the expensive ones," and the result will be that the imposition of this kind of duty will mean that a certain number of the poorer people will suffer a little more discomfort and the manufacturers of gloves will receive no corresponding advantage.
§ Captain W. W. SHAWI consider that the introduction of these Resolutions is the most important thing the Government have done. I believe they will be a great help to our industries and will relieve unemployment. I only wish that the Government had adopted them a little earlier. We all know that hon. Members opposite are very much opposed to these duties. Of course, they opposed the McKenna Duties, because they did not believe in them. I and a good many of my hon. Friends, owe our success at the last election to our advocacy of the imposition of the McKenna Duties. We are often taunted in this respect about being Protectionists, but the renewal of the McKenna Duties is something very different from the general policy of Protection which was rejected in 1923. On that occasion the electorate were made to fear Protection because hon. Members brought forward the story of the big loaf and the little loaf, and they told the people that under Protection they were going to have only the small loaf, while under Free Trade they would have the big loaf.
Another point is the contribution which will be made to the Treasury by these 2601 duties. I think it was the Leader of the Liberal party who said, "After all, what did the McKenna Duties bring in? It was only a question of a few millions."
§ The CHAIRMANThat question is not in order in a Debate on the Glove Duty.
§ Captain SHAWI know that hon. Members were allowed to wander far and wide yesterday, and I thought I might be allowed a little latitude to-day.
§ The CHAIRMANYes, we agreed to have a general discussion yesterday, and that is all the more reason why we should not repeat it to-day.
§ Captain SHAWThese Resolutions are a great protection for our industry and for labour. Many workers are now realising the importance of it, and they are asking for this form of protection. I come across a great many in my position, and they are constantly pointing out to me how this unrestricted competition is causing wages to fall because the manufacturer cannot afford to pay them. Other countries have adopted Protection, and therefore we have to protect ourselves against the kind of labour we meet with abroad. I do not agree that a higher price for the articles will necessarily follow, but, even if it did, in certain oases, mean a higher price for the articles turned out, I say it will be a splendid thing for our country, because it means employment, and, after all, that is what we are after. We had a wonderful speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), giving a picture of what the dole was and the misery that it brings. Surely—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is now going into an economic discussion like that which we had yesterday, and may, perhaps, have again on the Second Reading; but this is only a question of the Glove Duty so far, and I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to adhere to that.
§ Captain SHAWI will endeavour to do so. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was talking about our exports, and saying that the great trouble was that we were losing our exports to America, and that possibly it was through our manufacturers' neglect. Let me point out that America, when she started the manufacture of gloves, had to start a new 2602 industry, and started it under Protection, by protecting her own workmen and her own industry. In the result she has built up such an enormous trade that she is able to export in competition with the rest of the world. As regards the import of gloves, I see that the imports into this country from France between January and September of this year were nearly as much as they were in 1924. With regard to the exports in 1913, the exports of leather gloves were 229,000 dozen pairs, whereas in 1924 they were only 41,000 dozen pairs. We want to build up a strong home trade. By doing so we are able to compete with the rest of the world, and are able to export gloves, which is exactly what we want to do, and what, as the hon. Member for Keighley was pointing out, we have lost to such a large extent. I believe that by this protection we are going to build up a stronger home trade, not only in this, but in all the other industries that we protect, and then we shall be able to increase our exports.
I think the warmth of the statements of the Opposition is really in proportion to their hatred of the manufacturer. The idea they have is that by putting duties on these goods money is going to be put into the pockets of the manufacturers and capitalists, but really that is an absolutely wrong idea. It is putting money into the pockets of the employés, of the workers, and that is exactly what we want to do. We want to find them work and we are going to find them work by these duties that we hope will be put on. The delay between the passing of these Resolutions and the time when the. Finance Bill will become law is unfortunate, because of the time that will be allowed to importers of gloves in which to import tremendous quantities. We had that in the case of motor cars. When the duty was going to be put on they came in in tremendous numbers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, misjudged the matter, and he had to acknowledge that that hiatus meant a great loss to the Exchequer. In the same way, there will be a hiatus now, and I wish the Government would do something in that direction. I suggest that, if it be possible, they might make these Measures—certainly I would ask them to do so in regard to the Measure relating to gloves, and I hope they will in the case of the others also—they might possibly see their way to make these Measures retroactive. 2603 Then we should not lose the duties on immense importations of gloves between the time when it was known that the Committee had reported favourably on it and the time when the duty actually comes into force.
§ Mr. HARRISWe have had from the other side some very interesting and, if I may say so, rather significant speeches. I think I am right in saying that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, although he did not make it quite clear, has an important glove industry in his constituency, and certainly the first two Members who spoke from the other side made it clear that they spoke, not so much from the point of view of the general interests of the country, not so much from the point of view of the well-being of the whole community, but in order to feed the flame of the glove industry, because that was one of the important industries in their constituencies. That is a novel feature in the proceedings of the House of Commons of this country, although it is common, in particular, in America. In fact, in America it is quite common for Members specially to be described by the names of the particular industries in their constituencies: and it is a fact that such Members actually speak as "the Member for boots," "the Member for hosiery," "the Member for silk," and so on.
Now we have had the spectacle in the House of Commons during the last two days and the earlier hours of this morning, and again this afternoon, of Members coming down and speaking, not so much as members of great parties dealing with a great Empire and dealing with great problems, but as "the Member for gloves," just as yesterday we had Members speaking as "the Member for cutlery," and no doubt we shall have others during the next few days. This will become an annual feature of our proceedings. We shall have Parliament asked to spend many hours considering special claims, special privileges, special requests from favoured industries to get special protection and special rights to dip into the pockets of the community by raising their prices owing to the removal of competition. That is a thing which must undermine the respect and weaken the moral authority of the—
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTCould the hon. Member quote any case of a duty where the price has been increased?
§ Mr. HARRISThat remark is quite irrelevant to what I was saying. I am talking about gloves at the moment, and the whole purpose of this duty is to raise prices. If the hon. Baronet will read the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade—who is a Protectionist—he will see it is made quite clear that the only purpose and the only desire underlying this proposal is that English manufacturers may get higher prices. It is pointed out throughout the Report, as it was in the Report we discussed yesterday, that the whole object of coming to the House of Commons in order to propose a duty of 33▴ per cent, was not to keep prices at their present level, but to increase them by as much of that percentage as possible. I do not think the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is relevant. If the result of putting on a tariff is that the price of the articles concerned is not to be raised to as high a figure as the public are willing to pay, the manufacturers wilt not give you a "thank you," because they say they cannot produce at a profit at the present moment.
§ Sir H. CROFTSurely, the hon. Member must realise that, if a glove factory can turn out three times as many gloves as before, the price will not be increased, but will come down.
§ Mr. HARRISThat is not necessarily so, in our experience of the matter. It is very easy to interrupt a Member and put him off his line of thought, but I think the hon. Baronet has not taken the trouble to study this particular industry. If he had, ho would have found that during 1920, as the Report says, there was, for special reasons, an immense growth of the glove trade. They had their opportunity then to standardise their products and reorganise their industry, and I see that one or two big firms like—I do not think I am giving them an unnecessary advertisement—the National Glove Company did reorganise their industry and standardise their products, and as the result of that they have been able in some particular lines to produce a very good article. Talking 2605 particularly of the fabric glove trade, that is a German industry. It was started in Germany, one might almost say it was invented in Germany. The Germans had an immense start, and were especially favoured by the conditions in the manufacture of this, after all, comparatively small and unimportant article, compared with the big staple industries like the cotton, textile and woollen industries; and it is impossible, as the Report says, to compete against them without artificially increasing prices.
I thought it was not unreasonable, in order to find out the exact position of this industry, to make inquiries in the City, and I got a man, who was not a politician, to go and inquire this very morning, not from the point of view of the speech I was going to make here, but in order to get the actual facts and find out the difference in prices and in value between the German imported glove and the English manufactured glove. I have no doubt that the hon. Baronet will say that the English glove is very much better, but I took the trouble to get a couple of these gloves, and perhaps, as he has shown such a great interest in them, I may hand them to him across the Floor of the Chamber. Here is the English glove. The price is 30s. per dozen from the manufacturer. Here is the German glove. I, of course, not being an expert, am unable to distinguish the difference, but the price is 15s. a dozen. The hon. and gallant Member would say, "Raise the price." That is the whole purpose—to make the poor unfortunate working woman in the East End of London, whose circulation is often very bad, who has to go out in all weathers, and very often suffers from chilblains, pay double or treble the price—
§ Mr. STORRY DEANSWill the hon. Member tell us at what price the German glove is sold—what the poor, wretched cold-fingered woman in the East End of London has to pay for it?
§ Mr. HARRISI agree. I think that one of the most interesting and significant things in this Report is that it shows that there is far too much profit put on by the middleman and the retailer. No doubt there is too much both on the English and on the German gloves.
§ Mr. HARRISThere is no reason to believe that our tradesmen and shopkeepers are not patriotic. On the contrary, the retail trade said that they were not considering this as a political problem, and were not willing to give evidence in this inquiry, but I think it is an unfair suggestion to make that the poor shopkeeper is anxious to push and sell German goods rather than English goods. On the contrary, a great campaign has been going on throughout the country, "Buy British Goods." I hope it will be a success, because I personally have a natural prejudice in favour of wearing and using British articles. It may be sentiment, but there it is; but it is not fair or reasonable or proper to go to the poorest of the poor in this country and say to them, "We will treat it as a crime, when conditions are bad, when trade is disorganised, and when there is a large amount of unemployment, if you buy a cheap article from abroad, and we are going to tax you because you do." Of course, it is absolute nonsense, because these very German gloves, we know, are made from yarn spun in Bolton. The Lancashire spinners, who have been going through a very bad time, and suffering a large amount of unemployment, have shown great courage, which should be an example to other manufacturers, and have not asked for Protection. On the contrary, they have sought to put their house in order and re-organise their industry, and both masters and men have faced the situation with courage and fortitude and imagination. They have not come whining to the House of Commons for protection. Now you are going, against their wishes, to interfere with their legitimate trade of exporting their yarn to the Continent to be made into gloves.
§ Sir H. CROFTIt would not affect the Lancashire trade.
§ Mr. HARRISThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is full of assumptions. He must have it drummed into his head once more that exports pay for imports. The Germans are not making these gloves for nothing. They have to be paid in some way. We do not pay in gold, and we have to pay in manufactured goods or coal. One of the troubles with the coal 2607 industry is that imports are not coming in, and the foreigner cannot buy our coal. Why put artificial barriers in the way? You will not help; on the contrary, you will hinder the home trade, because if you increase prices you decrease the consuming capacity of the people. If people have to pay double the price for their gloves, they have less money left to pay for stockings, shoes, and the other articles that make up the household budget and that fill our shops, warehouses and factories.
But as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) said, there is a more serious side to this. I recognise the sincerity of hon. Members opposite who believe in Protection. They are as anxious as the whole Committee is to help employment, and they think that by singling out this and that industry, giving a favour here and a favour there, they are going to find work for a few hundred men in this or that factory. If I were satisfied that that policy would add to the total employment of the country, I should be the very last, at a time like this, to put difficulties in the way of supporting it, but British trade is a much larger thing. It has always been the miracle of the whole world that this little island, with 40,000,000 people, is able to do the most important foreign trade in the world. Here we are with very few raw materials. We have only one real advantage—coal as a raw material, and the courage and enterprise and initiative of our people, which have enabled us to build up this world-wide foreign trade on free imports, because the absence of Customs barriers has enabled manufacturers to buy in the cheapest market without the interference of the State. Now the Government come forward interfering here and there. I notice that in one of these samples there was some silk. Already the tariff that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth is so keen on is beginning to work. There is a tax on the English manufacturer which the foreigner who competes in neutral markets has not the disadvantage of.
Then there is perhaps another aspect. I represent a London constituency. London is a very remarkable place. There are 7,000,000 of population congregated round the River Thames with 2608 no great industry and no great staple trade. Its existence is built up on the fact that it is a free port. It is the warehouse centre of the world. In Wood Street and St. Paul's Churchyard are the great merchants' warehouses that supply not only our home market, but up to a few months ago the world with a great part of its demands in textiles. These warehouses are not only filled with wares from our own country, but they draw their supplies from almost every country in Europe. There are great warehouses famous throughout the world for their gloves. It is the great glove department where merchants from Australia, New Zealand and South America come and see displayed before them the gloves of our own and other countries and do their trade here in London. That explains the thousands of offices, warehouses, carmen, packers, dockers and other people connected with trade round the River Thames. Now the Customs officer has been forced to interfere. Goods which used to come to London have been diverted to Hamburg. Already the Metz trade, which used to come through London, is going direct to our Dominions. Supplies that used to be handled in London, brought by our own ships, have been diverted to other ports, and London is suffering a large amount of unemployment already. I should like to take the hon. and gallant Gentleman down to the docks to see what is going on. He would find that a large amount of the goods that used to come to London not coming to London at all.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEYCan the hon. Member tell us how many gloves went to Hamburg?
§ Mr. HARRISNo. They used to come to London so as to so to our warehouses and be distributed all over the world. Now they are not coming to London. They are going direct to Canada and South America, and our dockers, warehousemen and packers are done out of a job. This is a disastrous policy. It is going to injure our trade and weaken our status as a great industrial nation. This is only one clumsy example of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is naked and unashamed. He is an honest Tariff Reformer. The Government as a whole pretend to have repented of their economic fallacies and 2609 have assured us that they have given up Protection, in this Parliament, at any rate. Now through a side door—a dozen duties, next year a dozen more—they are trying to impose a general tariff. They have deceived the nation. I think when the time comes there will be a day of reckoning.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)Perhaps it will be as well at this stage for me to deal with some of the points that have been made. I have done that showman's business that the hon. Member has been doing, and it lost me an election. I remember in the 1923 election going round with pots and pans. It nearly lost me my seat, and the hon. Member is about as ineffective now.
§ Captain BENNDid you give up your belief?
§ Sir B. CHADWICKWhat I am concerned with is this, that here you have an industry of which, on the leather glove side, 60 per cent. is going to the foreigner and on the fabric glove side, 84 per cent. We may do a great deal with figures and statistics and theories, but that is the cold fact, that the great bulk of these two industries is in the hands of foreigners and our people are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) spoke of the consumers being made victims. The fact is that the Committee have made their Report as the result of such evidence as was available to them. I am not saying the consumers are going to be the victims of anyone. I am not going to enter into the controversy as to where the tax is going to fall, but I do not admit by any means that the consumer is going to be the victim he depicts. I have heard it said often in other parts of the House that you are going to ruin this industry if you put on this tax. I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman says you are going to help the industry, though he also says you may injure another in doing so. I do not mind him saying that, but I am very glad to hear from such an eminent authority that you are going to help this industry which you tax, and that will be something for the hon. Member, who is one of those who say you are going to 2610 ruin industry. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) mentioned the effect that these Customs duties are having up to the present in the congestion of our ports and loss and discomfort generally. Can he name one instance; can he name any place where ho knows there is what really might be called port congestion owing to the administration of the Silk Duties? I really do not think he can, except that here and there a package has been held up or a consignment delayed.
§ Mr. HARRISI can give the hon. Member some information afterwards if he will give it attention.
§ Mr. LIVINGSTONEI know that hundreds of tons of cotton rags consigned to this country for paper-making have been held up in the Port of London because a few remnants of pink or blue ribbon were mixed with them.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThen the importer has made out his invoice incorrectly. If he had made a simple statement, the delay would not have happened. I come to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders). I was delighted to hear him say something on behalf of these committees. I have not yet heard any criticism from this side of the House of any of these committees which have turned down a duty. I have only heard criticisms of the committees which have reported in favour of a duty. Why is it that the committees which turned down the Superphosphate Duties and the Aluminium Holloware Duties have not been criticised? It is unfair. It is quite foreign to our standard of British public life that we in this House should take the view that committees appointed in this way should not be able to act impartially. I entirely disagree with my right hon. Friend when he spoke of bias.
§ Captain BENNOn a point of Order. I presume that hon. Members on this side will be entitled to discuss the reports of the Aluminium Holloware Committee and the Superphosphates Committee in reply to the hon. Member?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy)If hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House will only make such short reference to those subjects as 2611 has the hon. Member on the Front Bench, they will not be out of order, but other references would be out of order.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKI wish I had the command of language and vigour of expression which is possessed by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in order to reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). The hon. Member for Rochdale stated that he is one of the principal officers of the Glovers' Union, which has never been in favour of a tariff on gloves. The view I take of it is that the sooner the hon. Member's union get rid of him as one of its representatives, the better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh" and "Hear, hear!"] I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member. I am merely expressing my views, having regard to what I think would be the benefits of a tariff for this trade. He went on to say that it is false to argue that this industry wants a 33⅓ per cent. duty for protection purposes. He says that what is wrong with the glove industry is that the middlemen's charges are so excessive. How mixed the hon. Member gets.
§ Mr. HARRISIt was an hon. Member on the Government side of the House who said that, in an interruption.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKAt any rate, that is one of the difficulties which was pointed out by the Committee. It is not the manufacturers' prices that govern the cost of gloves, but the retailers' prices, and that profit goes into the pockets of people other than the manufacturers, and the worker gets no benefit from it. This question of the manufacturers' position is one that we must consider when we are thinking of those who are engaged in this industry by way of their capital, whether that capital be labour or money invested.
I would like to refer to the most interesting and excellent speech delivered by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene). Hon. Members opposite ask us to give evidence, and they say that such and such a thing will happen if we put on a duty. The only speech we have had which gives evidence from historic experience is the speech of the hon. Member for Worcester. He surveyed the history of the glove industry in his constituency from early days in a speech which, I am sure, would appeal to every 2612 hon. Member, and he gave remarkable evidence of the effect of tariffs and the absence of tariffs in his own district.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) proceeded with the old argument that the duty will do no good. I would refer him to the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who says that it will do good. The hon. Member for Keighley asked for evidence that the duty will do good. He has had evidence, and far more evidence than he could give to us as to the bad effects of a duty. He says that there are no figures of unemployment in this industry. The Ministry of Labour have not got the figures of unemployment in this industry separated from the general figures of unemployment, and, apparently, that is the reason why the Committee have rot had any figures before them; but I would point out that 67 per cent. of our leather glove trade is in the hands of foreigners, and 84 per cent. of our fabric glove trade is in the hands of foreigners.
§ Captain BENNWe are very much indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade for the frank and confiding way in which he always deals with public affairs, and for his great courtesy. He extended the subject of Debate so much that I am sure there will be many hon. Members anxious to participate in the fields of exploration which he opened up. He spoke of the Aluminium Hollow-ware Report. That Report was an attempt by a few interested manufacturers to get a tariff put upon the pots and pans of poor people. The fact that that proposal was too much for one of his committees is not a circumstance that will recommend the composition of the committees to Members of this House. He spoke of the Superphosphate Committee. That is a very interesting committee. There are agricultural Members present, and it would be very helpful to the House—I do not know whether it would be necessary to have a Secret Session in order to get the confessions of hon. Members opposite on the subject—if we could hear what agricultural Members opposite think of the proposition that fertilisers used by farmers should be taxed by a Conservative Government.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANWhen the hon. and gallant Member asked me a 2613 question a few minutes ago, I thought he was asking for information, and I gave him information to the best of my ability, but he does not seem to have taken my advice.
§ Captain BENNI am very sorry if my powers of compression are not equal to those of the Parliamentary Secretary. I will not pursue that point. He told us that in 1923 he went before his constituents to urge a general tariff. He said that he went surrounded by pots and pans, like a showman.
§ Sir R. CHADWICKOne of the hon. and gallant Member's friends had been trying to convince us by holding up silks and gloves.
§ Captain BENNThe difference is, that when the hon. Member opposite had expounded his views on Protection, and he found that they did not achieve success at the poll, he promptly gave them up; but my hon. Friend who expounds his belief in Free Trade is going to stick by it whether it wins or loses. That is the difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary made a surprising statement. He said that the proposition he was putting before the Committee was supported by a mass of evidence. We would like to have that mass of evidence. I have read this Report of the Gloves Committee, and if there is one feature more than another which is noticeable it is that there is not a tittle of evidence in the Report. There are a number of assertions, but not one is supported by evidence. One of our grievances is that the President of the Board of Trade has appointed this Committee, has given them leave to sit secretly, and has given them leave, or perhaps he has instructed them—he will not answer us on this point —to exclude witnesses, and then we are told that there is a mass of evidence in support of these proposals, when a great body of opinion in the trade could not be heard. We have not seen the evidence, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely unwilling and has most steadily refused to lay before the Committee of Ways and Means the evidence on which he is proposing to put this tax upon the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to controvert some statements made as 2614 to the congestion at the ports. We recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary has a very wide experience and that he is a man of great achievements in many walks of life, but I do not think that he would challenge the argument which has been put forward by men of experience in these matters, who allege that the ports are congested, not only because of the duties but because of the ridiculously impracticable character of the duties which are now imposed. It may be said that the Minister speaks with knowledge. What knowledge? Is there anyone in the Board of Trade whose duty it is to measure the flow of traffic into the ports or to take the figures at the Customs House? Nobody. That is the reason why we constantly ask that there should be on the Treasury Bench when we are discussing this subject some representative of the Department which is responsible for the entries into the ports of the country. We have appealed in vain. We cannot, with all our appeals to precedent, get what we want in that respect. We have utterly failed to get in Committee of Ways and Means a single representative of the Treasury. Of course, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury represents both the Customs and the Inland Revenue Department, and if he were here—[Interruption]. I will give the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane-Mitchell) opportunity, if he likes, to criticise me, if he cares to make a speech, but I do not pay regard to sotto voce interruptions, even from so distinguished a source.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYIs it in order for an hon. Member to catch the eye of the hon. and gallant Member instead of your eye, Mr. Deputy-Chairman?
§ Captain BENNThe fact is that however much importance we attach to statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and we do attach great importance to what he says, he is not speaking officially when he denies congestion at the ports. He does not represent the only Department that knows anything about the condition at the ports. He complains because we say that these Committees are not to be trusted. What are these Committees and how are they set up? They are supposed to be set up under the conditions of the 2615 White Paper. The White Paper has absolutely no authority. It is a paper laid in just the same way as any other Government paper is laid; just like the obiter dicta of any Minister might be laid in the form of a White Paper. It is not an Order of this House. It is not under any Statute. It is a few ideas of the President of the Board of Trade as to how he can introduce tariffs by a side wind. Supposing a number of eminent economists, men in public life, met together to consider the iron and steel industry, and supposing after they had heard evidence they decided that it was necessary that a duty should be put upon iron and steel—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is going back to the general discussion which we had yesterday. Under this particular Amendment, the discussion has to be kept to the question of gloves.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Captain BENNMay I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman in his speech made a general defence of the composition of the Committees, and he said to us, "You attacked the composition of the Committees in general." He mentioned the Superphosphate and Aluminium Committees and he proceeded to defend the Committees. All I am asking is in special reference to the Report of the Committee on Gloves that I should be allowed to reply to the hon. Gentleman's defence of the character of this Committee, if you like, which recommends a duty on gloves.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIn the course of Debate criticism has been thrown on this particular Committee, and the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench is bound sometimes to stand up for the Committee upon which he proposes to base his case.
§ Captain BENNI shall endeavour to observe any ruling you give, but I understand the lattitude permitted to the hon. Gentleman is now restricted, and I am not permitted to attack the character of the Committee.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANSome criticisms have been made, in consequence 2616 of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made an answer which I allowed.
§ Captain BENNIn deference to your Ruling, we shall have to leave the unsupported statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the impartiality of these Committees. The first point I would mention in reference to this question is this, that in the Debate of December, 1924, in this House on the Motion in reply to the Gracious Speech we were told that these Committees were to answer these questions in the affirmative, and, if they did not answer them in the affirmative, then the Government would find themselves unable to recommend a duty on the particular article. I think it was in May of this year that the Cabinet decided to alter this proceeding. The "Times" newspaper, which was obviously inspired from official sources, pointed out that the answers to these questions in the desired sense was not essential, and once that was decided by the Cabinet the Committees, of course, took instructions from the President of the Board of Trade, who is a member of the Cabinet, and consequently there was no use us persuading ourselves to believe that these Committees set up by the President of the Board of Trade were in any way hound by the questions or indeed compelled to answer them in the affirmative before a duty could be recommended.
Let me take one or two of these questions with strict regard to the question of gloves. The first is this: We understood that the purpose of the safeguarding scheme was to safeguard industries and not to create a new industry. If you are going to extend that and say, "We will create such a tariff barrier as will enable us to plant, practically for the first time in this country, a new industry," yon are going far beyond anything originally intended in the safeguarding scheme. This has a very important bearing on the negotiations with Germany. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the German delegates said, "We can understand you imposing tariffs for the purpose of safeguarding certain industries: what we object to is a tariff for creating new industries, especially in industries directly aimed at our own export industries."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is now raising the whole argu- 2617 ment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That cannot be permitted on this occasion.
§ Captain BENNLet me assure you I never mentioned the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I mentioned the White Paper on which this Committee on gloves is acting and I have no desire to extend the scope of the Debate, but I ask permission to examine in its widest aspect the investigation into gloves which this Committee was appointed to secure.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTEROn that point of Order, there was a Ruling given by the Chairman yesterday that there should be a long discussion on the general policy, pledges, White Paper, and so forth, and it took place—and it occupied six hours—on the understanding that all further discussion should be confined strictly to the merits of the particular duties on the particular articles.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is quite true and is exactly what I was endeavouring to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn).
§ Captain BENNI shall confine myself to the application of the White Paper to the case of gloves, and I will not go wittingly one inch beyond that. I am going to attack the endeavour of this Committee, under the guise of safeguarding an old industry, to create a new industry. This new industry, the fabric glove industry, is aimed especially at the German fabric glove industry, and in these negotiations between the British and the German delegates which have just broken down this is a case in point. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if he did not say in these negotiations that he was prepared not to propose legislation for the creation of a new industry, such as the German fabric glove industry. If the report in the "Times" is correct, it is quite clear we are doing a thing which is directly threatening our growing and increasingly important export trade to Germany. The question shows that it must be so, that there is an import, in competition, of the same article or similar articles. In this Report it is pointed out that these gloves which come from abroad are not the same articles. High-class gloves like high-class cutlery are an especially British product and cannot be beaten by anything in the 2618 world. It is a very high class thing and not suitable for ordinary, wide, popular consumption by people who have little money to spend. Turn to page 4, for example, of the Report on leather gloves. They do not say on page 4 that the manufacturers in this country are able to produce, or are producing a similar article, but I beg hon. Members to remember that that was the test—that there is something being made here, there is something being made abroad, and competition from abroad has killed that article here. What do they say?
The Applicants contended that their industry was highly skilled and had existed in this country for several centuries.Going back to Julius Cæsar, like the razor.They claimed to be able to produce any kind of glove which is now imported, provided that they were protected from unfair competition.I am missing three lines which are not relevant to the argument.Further, they submitted that even if all the imported gloves had been of a different type from the British, they would be substitutes for the latter.That means that our articles are not the same. It means that these people said it is true, we are not making what the Germans are making, but if we get a duty we can make what the Germans are making. They cannot answer in the affirmative the question proposed that they are suffering from competition in articles of the same class imported from abroad. Let me come to the question of efficiency. It is no good the hon. Member below making scornful laughter; we are just as much concerned with the greatness of our commerce as he is, and we think that we have a sounder economic view than he has. I do not know whether Members have read the Report on gloves issued in 1921. In 1921 it was made quite clear that this glove industry was a small post-War industry created on the back of a totally different War industry. It was an effort to use the machinery and factories which had been made for the one thing, in a new industry. It was not very successful, and the people engaged in it would have been better to direct their efforts in the channels in which they would have achieved greater success with the natural advantages they possess. I ask hon. Gentlemen who are following the 2619 argument to take pages 4 and 5. Page 4, paragraph 8, says at the bottom of the page:It is no doubt true that the gloves produced by several British manufacturers up to 1919–20 were not of the same standard as that obtaining in Germany"—that is to say not so efficient—but this is largely accounted for by the fact that the industry had been established in Chemnitz for a long period of years, whereas the British industry developed during the time of the War.That is no doubt an explanation and extenuation. It does not alter the fact that the committee found that there was disparity in conditions. The most they say is that they are satisfied that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products. That is the best this Committee, which is recommending a duty, can do in reply to the question: Is the industry conducted with efficiency? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"]We are satisfied, however, that British manufacturers have considerably improved their products during the past few years "—It must have been bad before—We are of opinion that the types of fabric gloves now produced in this country are fairly comparable in fit and finish with those at present manufactured abroad.That is not exactly a high testimonial to efficiency. Does the hon. Member wish me to continue?The applicants maintained that they were unable to meet Continental competition, principally on account of the lower wagesand so on. This committee with all the goodwill in the world, and all the reluctance which everyone would feel to decry any British product, does declare that they are fairly comparable, and, i hold, show some improvement. If a school report says there is improvement, it is not quite so high as the schoolmaster would wish it to go.Let me come to the next question, namely, whether there is an abnormal import. That is very important. I repeat the question which has been put in all these cases to the Government: What do they mean by "abnormal import"? What is the definition of "abnormal import"? The words used are the same for all these committees, but the interpretation is different for 2620 each committee. It has been said that the Minister has given instructions as to the meaning of the words "abnormal import." The right hon. Gentleman will not say that he has not given such instructions. I pause for the reply. Has he given the committees instructions?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERAs I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday, I have given no committee any instructions except the instructions laid down in the White Paper.
§ Captain BENNThat is a matter to which we will come on the Report of another committee, the Gas Mantle Committee, where special terms of reference, outside the terms of the White Paper. were laid down. The right hon. Gentleman has to assess and appraise and to determine what he will do on the reports of these committees. In his view what is the. correct interpretation of the term "abnormal import"? Does he mean imports greater than pre-War imports? Does he mean a pro-pressive increase of imports? Does he mean imports greater than the post-War imports? What does the term mean? Clearly, if you take the widest definition, as some of the committees do, and say, "If we can find one year where the import of these goods is greater than that of another year, then there is an abnormal import," there is not a single industry in the country which does not show an abnormal import within the terms of such a definition. Let us turn to page 7 of the Report. This matter has been investigated by the Gloves Committee. Let us deal first with the growth of the import in the year 1925. One of the effects of all this campaign about safeguarding, the setting up of all these semi-private committees, the small paragraph in the newspaper saying that an application had been made to the Board of Trade, a short announcement that the committee was to sit—all that has a definite effect on the foreign exporter. The moment he sees that there is to be a committee set up he says, "Well, in case they put on a duty"—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have followed the hon. and gallant Member and I cannot find that he is referring to gloves at all. He is referring rather to the general question, which has been fully discussed.
§ Captain BENNI have not cited a single instance which was not taken from the Glove Report. It is perfectly true that I am illustrating the general question, but I am doing it from the Glove Report, and surely the object of the discussion of any Resolution is to see whether, in the case of the article on which it is proposed to put a tax, the general conditions are fulfilled?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat was settled yesterday in the general discussion, which included all the articles mentioned in the different Resolutions. That cannot be repeated to-day.
§ Mr. LANSBURYAt the beginning of this discussion yesterday, I asked your predecessor whether we could discuss the general question on a Resolution, and he said in effect, "Certainly, if that were agreed." It was agreed generally that that was what should be done. I told the Chairman distinctly that I wanted an opportunity to discuss the whole question.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think the hon. Member will bear me out when I say that the point which was put to the Chairman yesterday was that I had, as was stated, quite properly opened with all the facts on the particular Resolution, and that an hon. Member should be permitted, on the Resolution, not only to speak of the rate of duty and so on, but to speak of all the relevant factors in relation to the particular proposal; but no suggestion was made that we should go beyond that, nor did I go beyond it in my speech by engaging again in a general discussion of policy.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANMay I endorse what the last speaker has said. That was certainly the understanding reached in the discussion at the beginning of these Debates. What has been pursued by my hon. and gallant Friend I understand is this: The argument that the 1920 figures are not useful for deciding on this question, for the simple reason that, there having been a previous announcement in regard to the setting up of these Committees, foreign exporters have taken note of that fact and have rushed their goods into this country. The only thing that appeared to be lacking on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend was that he did not use the word "gloves" in 2622 every other sentence. Every argument led up to the examination of the figures, and that was quite relevant to the ruling of yourself and your predecessor.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOn the contrary, that is how the hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to get himself in order— by using the word "gloves." General policy cannot be discussed on this Motion.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI do not want to press the point. Am I to understand that it is not in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to make the point that publication of the notice that this Committee was to be set up had led to an abnormal import of gloves in the period before the Committee reported? That was the point I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to be making. Is that in order?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is not in order to discuss the general policy of this Safeguarding of Industries Act. The only thing that is in order is to discuss whether gloves are to be included in the Resolutions or not.
§ Captain BENNI assure you sincerely that I have been endeavouring to keep within the strict rules of debate, and I am trying to illustrate from the Glove Report, and from no other document, the arguments that I wish to advance against the proposition. Let me come to the question whether, in the case of gloves, there is an abnormal import. In the White Paper there is a very useful table at the foot of page 7, where are shown the percentages of total United Kingdom consumption of gloves, with the figures for British manufactures and foreign manufactures. We find that whereas in 1913 the British manufacturer enjoyed 26 per cent. of the trade in gloves, in 1924 he enjoyed 32.5 per cent. of the tra3e. How can the President of the Board of Trade, in face of those figures, contend that the foreign manufacturer is making an abnormal import? The share of the foreign manufacturer has decreased from 74 per cent. in 1913 to 67.5 per cent. in 1924. I contend, therefore, that the answer to the question put to the Glove Committee, "Has there been an abnormal import?" is that in this particular article, so far from the proportion of British manufactures having declined, it has positively advanced in the market.
2623 Now I come to another question that was put to this Committee, namely, whether the foreign manufacturers are selling at prices lower than the prices at which the same article can be profitably manufactured in this country? I ask hon. Members to turn to page 9 of the Report. The Committee say that they have examined many types and grades of fabric and leather gloves and are of opinion—
that in the classes of goods manufactured in this country our manufacturers are meeting severe competition from comparable goods which are being sold or offered for sale at prices at which British firms cannot profitably manufacture them.That is a categorical statement. But it is not supported by one tittle of evidence. It was not supported by the evidence of the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to-night. We cannot lay our hands on a single statement of a qualified individual in support of this conclusion. It is merely the Committee who say that they are of opinion that these gloves are coming in and are being sold at prices with which the British manufacturer cannot fairly compete. We are the Committee of Ways and Means, and if we are to impose this duty we require the evidence to be laid before us. If the President of the Board of Trade could say that the evidence was available in the Library, that might be some answer, although it might involve an abrogation of the very ancient functions of this Committee. But merely to take the unsupported testimony of three individuals who have been made members of the Glove Committee and who ask us to say that foreign goods are being sold here at prices with which our people cannot compete—though that statement may be true, it is not proved.The next question is, whether employment in the glove industry is seriously affected? I ask hon. Gentlemen to turn to page 10 of the Report. They will find in paragraph 28 a statement as to the numbers employed. We find that whereas in 1913 there were 2,400 people employed in this industry, in 1924–25, or when the Report was issued, there were 1,800. That shows a considerable and lamentable decline of 600. Yes, but it cannot really be said that with the prevailing unemployment in this country this is an industry which you should single out.
§ Mr. HANNONTo provide employment for only 600 is very important.
§ Captain BENNIt is, indeed, extremely important, but the hon. Gentleman does not follow my argument. He, of course, is perfectly logical. He would extend this specific to all the industries of the country. He never denies it. No doubt the bulk of hon. Members opposite are of the same mind. But that is not the basis of this application to gloves. The basis of this application is that here is an industry which, even in these bad times, is much worse than the rest, and, therefore, is entitled to the duty.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWould the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the lines above the one he has mentioned? It states that in July, 1919, there were 10,948 employed.
§ Captain BENNIn 1919 there was no import at all, and the reason for that is obvious, for 1919 might almost be called a war year. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not take the figures for 1916 and 1917? I say that to the question, Is unemployment in the glove industry abnormal? according to all impartial observers the answer is in the negative. I want to come now to the question of competition from other countries. Hon. Members will see this mentioned on, page 11 of the Report. The question put to the Glove Committee was, whether exceptional competition in this industry comes largely from countries where the conditions are different? The Report purports to set out examples of conditions differing so as to render competition unfair. If hon. Members read paragraph 29 they will find a large number of statements, but they will not find, from beginning to end, one jot of evidence. They will find that the secretary to the Committee, at the bidding of the three members, has made a number of assertions, but there is not a single piece of evidence to support the assertions, and the President of the Board of Trade will not give us any evidence. He shelters himself behind these assertions, and I contend that such assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot possibly weigh with the Committee of Ways and Means which is asked to impose this duty.
I remember the duty which was put on fabric gloves in 1922, and I remember the 2625 Report of the Committee which examined the state of the industry in 1921. They said that the industry was being affected by German imports because of the inflation of the mark. That was the gravamen of their case—that the low value of the mark created conditions with which British industry was unable to compete. It was pointed out that it was only the exclusion of gloves from Australia and the fiscal preferences of Canada which prevented the German manufacturers getting a foothold in those two markets. Now this Committee recommends the duty but not on that basis. The mark has now been stabilised, and the price of manufacture in Germany is steadily rising, leaving aside the question that the German manufacturer has to borrow capital at exorbitant rates of interest. The Committee do not mention the fact that the preferences in Australia have been still more heavily weighted in favour of the home manufacturer, and instead of that they base their case for the duty—
§ Mr. GREENEIs it not the implication of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party that Colonial Preference is quite useless to us because the preferences are not sufficient for us to get in our goods?
§ Captain BENNNothing would give me greater pleasure than to join issue with the hon. Gentleman, but of course it is obviously impossible to do so within the ruling given by the Deputy-Chairman. Although I do not in the least shirk it, I cannot at this point enter into an argument on Colonial preference. I say that, despite this increase in the Australian preference and despite the stabilisation of the mark, this committee on gloves goes back to the decision of the old committee on gloves and insists that there is a case for the duty, although they are not able to support it by any material evidence. In this case of fabric gloves we have an opportunity of examining the facts in the light of experience, because for a short period—happily terminated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—fabric gloves did enjoy a duty, and by looking at the tables in the Report we are enabled to see what happened when that duty was enforced. Let us take figures 2626 in paragraph 21 in relation to the duty which existed from August, 1922, to August, 1924. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their contention, that duty should have done much to check the import of foreign fabric gloves. Did it? Here are the figures. The percentage of the total United Kingdom consumption enjoyed by the foreigner in 1922 was 87. After two years of the duty he had 88 per cent. Does not that show that the one experiment we have made in this direction wan a complete and dismal failure?
§ Captain BENNYes. but everybody knows, and nobody better than the hon. Member, that in fabric gloves it was the Saxon competition which mattered, and that the Act as originally drawn covered everything which could be said to originate in Germany. Therefore, I contend that even tested by the conditions laid down by the Government and judged by the assertions of the Committee, the case for the duty absolutely fails. In this Report it is pointed out that Italy is one of the chief exporters of these gloves to this country. I regret more than ever that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his right place on the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in debt negotiations with Italy. How does he suppose he is going to get his debt paid by Italy unless it comes in the form of Italian gloves or some other goods? It is idle for hon. Gentlemen to try to have it both ways. It is idle to say "We will have our foreign debts paid," and then when things like these gloves come along to say "We will not have the gloves." It is a complete confusion of thought, and hon. Members must make up their minds that they cannot reject foreign goods and have foreign debts paid. There is a further point in this Report, although it did not seem to be within the proper scope of the inquiry, and that is the question of prices. The Committee say that the price of these gloves is very high. Paragraph 29 (h) is extremely interesting because it shows that if you raise the price of these gloves by putting a duty on them, there is going to be a percentage profit on that duty as well as on the cost of the glove, at every stage of dis- 2627 tribution. It is pointed out that the manufacturer in the first place adds the cost of the duty. The wholesale distributor puts his profit on to the cost of the article plus the cost of the duty and then the retail distributor takes the price of the glove plus the duty plus the profit of the wholesale distributor and on top of that accumulated total puts his own profit.
I must confess I am not hopeful of Government interference) in these matters, but I think more practical sense would be shown by the right hon. Gentleman if he were to say, "This Report reveals gross profiteering on this article and I propose to devise something to stop that profiteering." Then the right hon. Gentleman might be said to be doing something in the interests of the consumers. There are minor points which will arise. For instance, if a glove has a little silk in it, is a double duty to be charged? Further, what is the yield of the duty? Do hon. Members think it consistent with their self-respect to sit here as members of a Committee imposing a tax, and for the first time in history the responsible Minister does not know what the yield of the tax is going to bet If there is a little silk in a glove, is the right hon. Gentleman going to make it liable first to the silk duty on the total value of the article, and then add a 33⅓ per cent. duty on to that? If so, will it be added on to the c.i.f. value? That is what happened in connection with the German Reparation (Recovery) Act. When such a glove comes in, what is the aggregate figure on which the Customs Department will charge? These are very important questions, and they do not arise only in the ease of gloves containing a little silk. There is also the case of motor-drivers' gloves. The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me with authority, because it is not his Department, but are not motor drivers' gloves regarded as motor accessories and liable as such to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. already? We cannot have a Treasury official here to tell us whether the gauntlet glove for the motor cyclist or the owner of a small car, is going to be subject to 33⅓ per cent. as a motor accessory, and to another 33⅓ per cent. on the price plus the first 33⅓ per cent., because it is a glove.
2628 It is quite impossible to consent to these tinkering tariffs on twopenny-half-penny articles which are going to re-create the long list of dutiable goods swept away by this country in the early part of last century—little duties producing little revenues and causing infinite hardship to the trade of the country. Of course, it is not going to stop at gloves. Lady Askwith, who sat on the Committee, expresses the opinion that a tax having been imposed on imported silk glove fabrics, it will operate unfairly on that industry should cotton glove fabric come in free. When the Report on the paper industry comes along we shall find that the result of putting a tax on in that case will be a demand from at least 30 other industries claiming to be damaged by that duty. It is the beginning of a general tariff, and a very bad general tariff, a tariff which is merely a collection of articles—not even that which is humourously called a scientific- tariff. It will be a tariff suggested by little interests coming together for the purpose of exploiting the consumer and persuading the President of the Board of Trade, hot in open debate but in secret Committee, to propose these Measures to the House of Commons.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI have listened to this Debate all the afternoon, and as one who held no political views in pre-War days and only took an interest in polities because of the state of the country, I am filled with amazement on listening to the academic ingenuity of hon. Members opposite, which has for is sole object, as far as I can see, keeping British men out of employment. That this is, in fact, the case is fairly evident so far as the Labour party is concerned, because during a large part of the Debate there has not been a single back bench Member of that party present.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThere are not many of your own party.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYWe have a great many more than the Labour party.
§ Mr. CHARLETONWhere were you last night?
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI was working on my housing scheme.
§ Mr. CHARLETONWe were in the House of Commons.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYThat shows how stupid hon. Members were to stop here instead of going home to bed.
§ Mr. CHARLETONWe were looking after the interests of the unemployed.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYNo. You were simply trying to obstruct Government business, and you know it. Hon. Members are well aware that all-night sittings are perfectly useless for the business of the country.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANOn a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to accuse other hon. Members of obstructing public business? I have heard rulings from the Chair on that subject.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member, was going further than he ought to have gone.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI apologise if I went beyond the rules of the House, but I do feel that in the present condition of the country we should do everything to increase employment, and if. I did speak with a little bit of feeling I hope that I shall be forgiven. Let us take the whole speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). What do we find? First he attacked the terms of reference to the Committee, then the constitution of the Committee, and then the impartiality of the Committee, but he did not once address himself to the question whether or not more persons will be employed by the imposition of this duly, whether the cost of gloves will go up, or whether the increased trade will bring revenue to the Exchequer. Every single argument he produced was one of academic economics. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are academic economics?"] Academic economics are those advocated by persons who have never had to conduct a business.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. and gallant Member to deal with the question before the Committee, namely, gloves.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI was endeavouring to keep on the track of gloves, but I was continually interrupted. If one may turn to the question of gloves, surely there are only three questions 2630 before this Committee to-night. We are not discussing whether or not the Safeguarding of Industries Act should have been brought into force or otherwise, but whether or not gloves should be brought under that Act, and there are three questions to be asked. The first is, will the cost of gloves to the consumer be increased or decreased by their being brought under this Act? The second question is, will more British people be employed by the imposition of this duty or not? And the third question is, will the revenue be increased or otherwise by the increase of trade? Let me deal with the first point, because many of the arguments that have been addressed to the Committee by hon. Members opposite have been based on the assumption that the price of goods will be increased. I entirely disagree, and I would like to give some actual figures. I will take the figures from the speeches of hon. Members opposite. Supposing we take a. pair of gloves costing the manufacturer 5s. to produce. Hon. Members opposite have told us that the retail price is at least 100 per cent. more than the wholesale price, and, therefore, that pair of gloves we are considering would not be sold under 10s.; but the duty is levied upon the manufacturing cost, and not upon the retail cost, and, therefore, the increase in the price of those gloves, other things being equal, would be. 1s. 8d.
There is another factor to be brought in, namely, that the charges are not entirely for labour. Where machinery is employed in a large degree, the overhead charges are greatly in excess of labour costs, and, therefore, if there is an increase in output, and those overhead charges are reduced by an amount greater than the duty imposed, the cost to the consumer is bound to be less with the imposition of that duty than it would be without the imposition of that duty, for the simple reason that output has gone up, and therefore the cost of production has gone down. That is amply illustrated in this very question of gloves. America put an import duty on gloves, and continued to increase that duty, with the result that two firms were able so to increase their output that they actually attracted the men from this country who were put out of work here by the competition of those factories, and went to America, with the result that they took the whole of the export trade 2631 from us. I see the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and I would suggest to him that that is what will always happen with any industry which is protected, and which is capable of the application of mass methods of manufacture, because if the article be protected, the output is increased, and the overhead charges come down to such a degree that it matters very little what the wages are. Let me take one or two examples without going outside the limits of the Debate. I believe Mr. Morris is paying his men something like £7 a week. That is one example of the fact that the cost of labour does not very much matter when you get real mass production. Take another case in which I happen to know the figures are accurate.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThis is going too much into general policy.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI was endeavouring to prove that if the cost of labour were to go up, the actual cost of the gloves would be less, but as I cannot pursue that argument in any detail, I think it can be proved without doubt that if the output be increased by 50 per cent., the overhead charges will fall by an amount more than sufficient to compensate for the duty, and the result will therefore be, that in so far as cost is concerned, the gloves will be produced and sold to the consumer at a cheaper price with the duty on than without it, for the simple reason that the reduction of overhead charges goes to our factories instead of to the foreign factories. With regard to the question of labour, surely if we increase our output by 50 or more per cent., it is quite certain we shall employ more labour. The third point is, shall we obtain more revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the imposing of these duties? I submit that we shall obtain that increased revenue on three grounds, the first by whatever imports may be levied on the goods which still come to this country. Further, we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax and Super-tax levied upon the shareholders and the manufacturers, and we shall obtain it by the increased Income Tax which is paid by the extra workmen who are employed, [An HON. MEMBER: "Who pays it?"] They pay it if they get high enough wages.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is an argument concerning a general tariff. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will confine himself to the Amendment.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI will endeavour to keep entirely to the question of gloves. Therefore, on the three questions which we have asked ourselves, if this duty be put on gloves, namely, will the cost go up or down, we can answer quite definitely that the cost to the consumer will go down; we can answer, secondly, that we shall employ more British persons in the industry; and, thirdly, that the revenue of the State will be increased. Therefore we have only to consider as ancillary matters to these three major issues as to what is the extent of the market which is open to us, and we see from the figures in the White Paper that we are to-day producing, approximately, one-third of the total quantity of the articles required. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) stated that the duty would not, in fact, touch the essential reason of the contraction of the glove trade, which was the reduced purchasing power of people in this country. But what I suggest to him is that it will touch the essential factor of the glove trade in this country, because if there is only a certain market to be obtained, the higher the proportion of the market that the British industry can obtain, the better will British industry be able to overcome those difficulties, which, otherwise, it would be unable to overcome. I do not think it can be argued, that because the industry as a whole is contracted, we in this House should not take such steps as we may to ensure that, in so far as the British market is concerned, the British manufacturer should obtain whatever remains of that contracted industry. For that reason, the fact that the industry is contracting is only one more ground why this duty should be imposed. If we turn to the question of exports, we shall again find that as the cost of production will be reduced owing to decreased overhead charges, we shall be enabled to regain that export trade which we have lost. It is on these grounds that I do hope the Committee will not be guided by pre-War theories as to what the various parties should support in regard to tariffs. Surely what we in this House 2633 want to do is to try to put more persons into employment if we can do it without affecting the consumer. I submit the consumer will be assisted and not hurt by this duty, and I sincerely hope the party opposite will sink their prejudices and support the Government in these Resolutions.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOODI think we have all listened with great interest to the very sincere speech of the hon. and gallant Member and his examination into what he would call "practical economics," but which, I am afraid, has convinced me of the superiority of what he calls "academic economics." I do not wish to follow his arguments in detail; they seem to be based on a series of assumptions which would take me too long to analyse in detail. I would, however, like to refer to the Report itself, because I understand the Government base their case entirely on this document. With a simple and pathetic faith in documents of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to swallow them whole. I find some difficulties. It is proposed to protect leather and fabric gloves, but not to protect glove fabrics. The first Order which was issued under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1922, did protect both fabric gloves and glove fabrics. I am now placed in this position. I do not see that the economic situation with regard to glove fabrics has changed any more than that with regard to fabric gloves, and if in 1922 it was right to protect glove fabrics, yon cannot say that they should not be protected to-day. But there is this difficulty always in these matters: They depend very much on the mood and temper of the people who happen to be inquiring into the question. It is just possible that, if there were another Committee next year, it might recommend that glove fabrics should be protected, and the lady who signed the reservation to the Report was quite right in suggesting that the matter could not be allowed to rest where it was.
The facts, so far as they are adduced in the Report, show that, whatever the reason, there is a restricted national consumption of gloves, and that there is a restricted foreign market. If these two 2634 facts be stated correctly I do not see how it follows that any kind of expansion of the home or foreign market will follow from the imposition of these duties. On the contrary, it might be shown that the market might be further restricted. It is impossible for the trade to expand its home market, which is admittedly the root of the trouble from which it is suffering, by any plan which will make gloves more expensive.
The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) suggested that the price of gloves might be less, but the whole immediate object is to raise the price of gloves to the British consumer. It was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) that the conclusions of the Committee are not supported by evidence. That, I think, is true. One sees that particularly in paragraph 29, dealing with foreign competition. It says first, that one of the reasons why competition should be regarded as unfair is because of low wages in most of the competing countries. For example, Germany, Italy, Belgium and France. Will the President of the Board of Trade give the Committee the rate of wages of the different grades of workers in the fabric glove and leather glove industries in those four countries, and put the wages of English workpeople side by side with them, and will he go back to pre-War days and give us the rates of wages of glove workers in this country and those four countries? I ask that, be ause I think the Committee is entitled to that information. It might have been given in the Appendix to the Report.
Frankly, I do not believe in this argument. It is true that, before the War, wages in most manufacturing industries in those countries were below the wages paid to equivalent grades of labour in this country. That was at a time when there was very little outcry for Protection. If, in the interval, wages have increased in those countries to the same extent as they have in this country, British manufacturers, on that ground, have no cause for complaint, and I am convinced that, in a number of industries allied with the fabric glove industry in Germany and France, the increase in the rate of wages of labour in the past 10 years has been greater than it has been in this country, and it is absurd therefore to attempt to take currencies which are 2635 more or less artificial and translate the wages into sterling, which make them look as if they are less per week, when the only fair ground of comparison is over a period of years to see to what extent wages have increased.
If it be true that wages in this country have increased more since the beginning of the War than in those countries which have been specified, to that extent manufacturers here would have a case, but, with no information to go upon, the Committee is unable to come to any decision as to how far that particular argument is a fair one or not. I make no complaint about the Committee. I am. sure that it acted according to its rights, but I do think that in paragraph 29 it does show an unwillingness to put all the facts. For example, take the question of depreciated exchanges. On that point I understand that at least nine-tenths of the yarn used in the manufacture of fabric gloves is manufactured in Lancashire, and most of it is exported to the other countries. It may be true that a depreciated exchange acts as a bounty upon the export of manufactured articles, but a depreciated exchange acts in precisely a contrary direction as regards the import of raw materials, and while a depreciated exchange may be an asset to a country for exporting goods it is a hindrance to its trade when it wishes to import goods, and yet nine-tenths of the raw material of these fabric gloves comes from this country and depreciated exchanges to that extent do not help the foreign fabric glove industry.
I am sorry if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks this strange economics. I should have thought that it was an accepted doctrine of economics that depreciated exchange is a bounty on exports, and a hindrance to imports. I will leave it at that, and the hon. Gentleman may reflect on it a little longer. Then reference is made to hours of labour. I see that very little evidence was given in support of that point. The only reference is that in Germany the hours of labour are longer than in this country, but they do not say what the difference is. It may be that there is a difference between the hours worked in this country and those worked in other countries. How is that problem going to be modified by the imposition of a tariff upon goods 2636 coming from those countries? I conceive that if a tariff is put on, the foreign manufacturer, anxious to maintain the market, may increase the hours of labour further, and workers in this country will be met by employers with the argument that therefore hours should be increased here. But if our Government are anxious to meet this difficulty of varying hours of labour in different countries one very simple and effective way of doing it would be to ratify the Washington Hours Convention, and then to persuade other countries to do the same. This tariff proposal will not succeed in achieving that object.
The fabric glove industry, it seems to me, is condemned in this Report. It is said that the German industry is an industry of long standing, which is very efficient. I think that it is true in recent years that the industry in this country has improved, as the Report points out; but it is quite clear that while, with every desire not to let the trade down, the Committee has stretched its words, it does not admit, and cannot admit, that the goods imported into this country and the goods produced at home are of the same quality. It is implied, in two places in the Report, that the British article is inferior to the imported commodity. What, therefore, we are asked to do is to subsidise an industry which is producing an inferior article, to enable it to put up its price beyond the price at which the superior article can be obtained. It is significant that the Committee referred to the cost of distribution. Many hon. Members opposite—
§ Mr. LANSBURYWhere are they?
§ Mr. GREENWOODIt is a great weakness of the economic system—
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. GREENWOODThere is an interesting section in this Report dealing with the cost of distribution. On that I think that we shall carry many hon. Members on the other side with us. Instances are given of the manufacturers' selling price being doubled by the time that the article—fabric gloves—reached the consumer, That is a problem that we ought to have considered by the Government, but none 2637 of us on this side of the House see how the cost of distribution would be reduced by the imposition of a duty. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last suggested that the whole of the cost of the duties would not come on the price. My view is that a pair of gloves, where the manufacturer's price is now 5s. and the retail price 10s., will become 6s. 8d. by the addition of the duty and 13s. 4d. in the retailers' stores, because, of course, the retailer insists, if he can get it, on 100 per cent, profit, and as the manufactured article goes through the hands of middlemen—
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYThe import duty is paid by the foreigner. There is no duty on British gloves, and therefore the price will not be increased. The price of foreign gloves is merely increased by the import duty, but the British gloves are not increased by the import duty at all.
§ Mr. GREENWOODI wish the hon. and gallant Member were right, but I should imagine it is a part of the motive behind the Government in bringing this Resolution forward to make the industry prosperous, to enable it to pay higher wages. It, therefore, needs more money,
§ and will get it by higher prices. I should say that the manufacturers would be more than human if they did not take advantage of the duty imposed on the foreign article to increase the price of the home article, and in either case, whether we are dealing with foreign gloves or British gloves, it is quite clear that the 33⅓ per cent. duty will be increased proportionately by the addition of retailers' charges. We would suggest that the way of dealing with this question is not by way of a tariff duty. I think those who have read this Report carefully will agree with the criticism that has been put forward that the case has not been proved, and that the Committee has not furnished this House with the information necessary for it to form a judgment on the merits of the case.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 131.
2639| Division No. 454.] | AYES. | [8.18 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir John |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Clarry, Reginald George | Gower, sir Robert |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Cobb. Sir Cyril | Grace, John |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Apsley, Lord | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cope, Major William | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Atkinson, C. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Gunston, Captain D. w. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Barnston, Major sir Harry | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Bethell, A. | Drewe, C. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Blundell, F. N. | Elveden, Viscount | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Everard, W. Lindsay | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Fielden, E. B. | Holt, Captain H. P. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Finburgh, S. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Fleming, D. P. | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Frece, Sir Walter de | Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Cassels, J. D. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Hume, Sir G. H. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gates, Percy | Huntingfield, Lord |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Gee. Captain R. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gibbs, Col, Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Hurst, Gerald B. |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Nelson, Sir Frank | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Jacob, A. E. | Neville, R. J. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Nuttall, Ellis | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Pease, William Edwin | Storry Deans, R. |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Pennefather, Sir John | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Lane-Fox, Colonel George R. | Penny, Frederick George | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Perring, William George | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Pilcher, G. | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Templeton, W. P. |
| Loder, J. de V. | Preston, William | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Price, Major C. W. M. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Lord, Walter Greaves- | Radford, E. A. | Tichfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Lougher, L. | Ramsden, E. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Lumley, L. R. | Remer, J. R. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Remnant, Sir James | Warner, Brigadier-General w. w. |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Macintyre, I. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Wells. S. R. |
| McLean, Major A. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Rye F. G. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Salmon, Major I. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Malone, Major P. B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Margesson, Captain D. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Womersley, W. J. |
| Merriman, F. B. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Sanderson, Sir Frank | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sandon, Lord | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Savery, S. S. | |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | Viscount Curzon. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Baker, Walter | Hardie, George D. | Scurr, John |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barr, J. | Hayes, John Henry | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Smillie, Robert |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snell, Harry |
| Bromfield, William | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Brown. James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cape, Thomas | Kennedy, T. | Taylor, R. A. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kirkwood, D. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Clowes, S. | Lansbury, George | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, John James | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, E. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lindley, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Connolly, M. | Livingstone, A. M. | Townend, A. E. |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lunn, William | Varley, Frank B. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Mackinder, W. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | MacLaren, Andrew | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Warne, G. H. |
| Dennison, R. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Duckworth, John | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dunnico, H. | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Montague, Frederick | Westwood, J. |
| Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Murnin, H. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Forrest, W. | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gosling, Harry | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Greenall, T. | Paling, W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wright, W. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | Ritson, J. | Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Sir |
| Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | Godfrey Collins. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Mr. F. C. THOMSON and Captain Viscount CURZON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and Mr. LANSBUEY and Mr. BUCHANAN Tellers for the Noes. But, on the Tellers coining to the Table, it appeared that Sir GODFREY COLLINS and Mr. LANSRURY had acted as Tellers for the Noes.
§ The CHAIRMANI received the names of certain Tellers in this Division—the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Other Tellers appear at the Table. Under these circumstances I can only hold that these Tellers have not been authorised—at least, one of them has not. The Tellers will withdraw and resume their seats.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINSI feel that a personal explanation is due to the Committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, for my action a few minutes ago. An hour or so ago I handed in at the Table my name and the name of a colleague to tell on this Amendment, and therefore thought that when the Division was called my hon. Friend and myself would be Tellers. It is through no lack of respect for my hon. Friends above the Gangway that I acted in the way I have done. If I have contravened the Rules of the House I apologise. I thought what I was doing was in keeping with my action an hour ago on an Amendment which was on the Paper, and that I should be entitled to tell as I have done.
§ Mr. BUCHANANAs I have been involved in this, may I also say a word in personal explanation? I understood no names had been handed in to tell; and if no names had been handed in the Division would have been declared void. There having been no names before you at the time, I took the opportunity, because I wanted a Division, to hand in the name of my colleague, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and myself. I understood those were the only two that were notified to you to act as Tellers. I retired from the door on understanding from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) that the thing had been adjusted. Not being used to acting as a Teller, I did it, I am afraid, rather innocently. I hope that nothing I have done reflects on the conduct of my colleagues.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIn order to clear my character, and to repudiate the cries of "Coalition," I want to say that I consented to act as a Teller to save, as I thought, the situation. Apparently, I have added to the gaiety of the House, and I am very pleased, indeed.
§ The CHAIRMANI can only say that all parties to this episode emerge from it with unblemished characters. A mistake has been made. Tellers can only be named and accepted after a Division has been called, and therefore I must put the Question again.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 127.
2645| Division No. 455.] | AYES. | [8.39 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Albery, Irving James | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) |
| Apsley, Lord | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Dalziel, Sir Davison |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) |
| Atkinson, C. | Caine, Gordon Hall | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Campbell, E. T. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cassels, J. D. | Drewe, C. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Elliott, Captain Walter E. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Chapman, Sir S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) |
| Bethell, A. | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Clarry, Reginald George | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fanshawe, Commander G. D. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Finburgh, S. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Cope, Major William | Fleming, D. P. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lamb, J.O. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lane-Fox, Colonel George R. | Rye, F. G. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Gates, Percy | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Gee, Captain R. | Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Loder, J. de V. | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Looker, Herbert William | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Sandon, Lord |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Lougher, L. | Savery, S. S. |
| Grace, John | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Lumley, L. R. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | McLean, Major A. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Macquisten, F. A. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Malone, Major p. B. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Margesson, Captain D. | Storry Deans, R. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Merriman, F. B. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Mitchell, Sir W. Line (Streatham) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Henderson, Capt. R-R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Morrison-Bell Sir Arthur Clive | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Neville R. J. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Nuttall, Ellis | Wells, S. R. |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pease William Edwin | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberf'nd, Whiteh'n) | Pennefather, Sir John | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Penny Frederick George | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Perring, William George | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Preston, William | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's) | price, Major C. W. M. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Radford E A | |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Ramsden, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jacob, A. E. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Remer, J. R. | Viscount Curzon. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Rice, Sir Frederick | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Dunnico, H. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield. Hillsbro') | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Kennedy, T. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Baker, Walter | Fenby, T. D. | Lansbury, George |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Forrest, W. | Lawson, John James |
| Barnes, A. | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Lee, F. |
| Barr, J. | Gosling, Harry | Lindley, F. W. |
| Batey, Joseph | Greenall, T. | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Beckett, John (Gateshead) | Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lowth, T. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Groves, T. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) |
| Broad, F. A. | Grundy, T. W. | Mackinder, W. |
| Bromfield, William | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Bromley, J. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | March. S. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Cape, Thomas | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Montague, Frederick |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hardle, George D. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Clowes, S. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Murnin, H. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hayday, Arthur | Naylor, T. E. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hayes, John Henry | Oliver, George Harold |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Palin, John Henry |
| Connolly, M. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Paling, W. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hirst, G H. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hopkinson, A (Lancaster, Mossley) | Potts, John S. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ritson, J. |
| Dennison, R. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland) |
| Duckworth, John | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Saklatvala, Shapurji | Taylor, R. A. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Westwood, J. |
| Scurr, John | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Whiteley, W. |
| Sexton, James | Thurtle, E. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Smillie, Robert | Townend, A. E. | Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | Windsor, Walter |
| Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Varley, Frank B. | Wright, W. |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Viant, S. P. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Snell, Harry | Wallhead, Richard C. | |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Stamford, T. W. | Warne, G. H. | Sir Godfrey Collins and Mr. |
| Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Trevelyan Thomson. |
| Sutton, J. E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda) |
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTMay I ask you, Mr. Chairman, for the information of the Committee on future occasions, whether it is not the case that the Ayes, having properly appointed their Tellers in the Division which has just been declared off. have the right to claim the Question without a Division?
§ The CHAIRMANI think not, because the Tellers for the Noes had been duly appointed, but other gentlemen had quite unconsciously usurped their places.
§ Mr. HERBERTI submit that the Tellers duly appointed did not tell, and therefore there were no votes for the Noes.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that suggestion does great credit to the hon. Member's ingenuity, but I cannot agree with it.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESSupposing this error happened two or three times, would that mean that there is no limit to the number of Divisions on the Question?
§ The CHAIRMANI never seek to meet trouble half-way. The next Amendment I select is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander).
§ Mr. RUNCIMANAre we to have no discussion of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), to leave out "33⅓" and to insert "5"? I submit that in Committee of Ways and Means a proposal for the reduction of a duty is one of the most important that can be put from the Chair. I should like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, under what Rule you pass over this Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANI have more than one thing to say about that. In the first place, I have an absolute right of selection; in the second place, this is an 2646 enabling and not an enacting Resolution; and, in the third place, the Motion to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. would practically mean a negative of the whole Resolution. I am quite willing to waive my right of selection if any of the hon. Members whose names are down to this Amendment will say that they are seriously desirous of imposing a duty of 5 per cent.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI respectfully press you, Mr. Chairman, to allow this Amendment to be moved. I would like to put one or two considerations. In the first place, you have in the Amendment at the top of page 3565 of the Order Paper, two Amendments relating to the period of time. The second Amendment, to which my name is attached, relates to the financial question, and lower down the Amendments refer to the articles concerned in the resolution. If you rule out the Amendment standing in my name, we cannot discuss the financial provision, and that is a very important question.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member will give me the explicit assurance which I have asked for, then I am prepared to waive my right of selection.
§ Mr. DAVIESI will do that with pleasure.
§ The CHAIRMANThen I may take it that the hon. Member seriously wishes that there shall be a 5 per cent. duty on imported gloves.
§ Mr. DAVIESI can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that those who have attached their names to this Amendment seriously desire a discussion upon it.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that does not satisfy my condition.
§ Captain BENNThis Resolution proposes to impose a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and I desire to give reasons why it should be 5 per cent.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not gather that the hon. and gallant Member says that he wishes to impose such a duty.
§ Captain BENNDo I understand that it is within the province of the Chair to invite professions of fiscal opinion?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not say that, but it is within the province of the Chair to select Amendments without giving reasons.
§ Captain BENNThen I will give shortly my reasons for supporting this Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not the point. The hon. and gallant Member may give a short explanation, but it rests with me whether I accept it or not.
§ Captain BENNI know you have a right, Mr. Chairman, to permit us to make a statement or to decide the question without a statement. Some of these duties now being proposed are to be imposed on articles which are already dutiable, and if we impose this 33⅓ per cent. which is now proposed, the aggregate on some articles might amount to 66⅔ per cent. We have devised an Amendment which will cover this point. Motor accessories, gloves and silk content would be subject to this double duty, and consequently it is of the first importance, and for these reasons I submit that we should be allowed to discuss this Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANI will give full weight to the hon. and gallant Member's considerations if he will put down a similar Amendment when the Bill is before the House in Committee.
Mr. ALEXANDEROn a point of Order. Do you not think, on reflection, that it is only—I do not want to use a wrong word—that it is only fair to the House that we should have the opportunity, in dealing with the enabling Resolution on which a Finance Bill will be framed, of voting specifically in such a way as will limit the scope of the Finance Bill upon this particular duty? It seems to me, from my short experience of the House, that we have always had the right, on previous Ways and Means Resolutions, to take a vote of the Committee in order to limit as far as we can the scope of the 2648 Finance Bill which is to follow. We shall not have that privilege if your ruling is adhered to.
§ The CHAIRMANMany Amendments of greater or less importance may be put down, but, on the first stage of a Measure like this, as it is only an enabling Resolution, I feel less inclined to allow unlimited scope than if it were an enacting Resolution.
§ Captain BENNMay I put to you a contingency which, if it arose—I do not say that it will—would, in view of your ruling, rob Members of the Ways and Means Committee of their rights? Supposing that the Government, having carried this Resolution for a duty of 33⅓ per cent., and you having ruled that an Amendment to reduce the duty to 5 per cent. was not one that you would select, and if, then, the Government introduced a Bill which only imposed a duty of 4 per cent., you will observe that then we should have been robbed of the opportunity of discussing the smaller duty, as we have on this occasion.
§ The CHAIRMANI can hardly imagine a case in which a Government, having taken such wide powers, would content itself with so very moderate an exercise of them.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANMight I put this point to you, Mr. Hope? This appears to me to be a very important precedent, which may affect the procedure in Committee of Ways and Means in future years. The proposal on the Paper, as I understand it, certainly in so far as I was responsible in putting my name to it, was not that I wished to have a duty of 5 per cent. Indeed, I am not sure whether the Government wish to have a duty of 33⅓ per cent. All that they ask in this Resolution is that they should have authority from the Committee of Ways and Means to impose in their Finance Bill a duty not exceeding 33⅓ per cent. That I understand to be the meaning of the Resolution. The desire that I had was to limit the discretion of the Government, not to 33⅓ per cent., but to 5 per cent. I wished to deprive them of discretion to the extent of 28 per cent. That was my object. I should like to know whether, in the future procedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, you would regard a 2649 Motion of that kind, limiting the discretion of the Government, as being a Motion not important enough to be selected by you.
§ The CHAIRMANIt all depends on the circumstances—on the terms of the Motion and all the surrounding conditions; and, having given full attention to all of these, I think that there are other Amendments which are more important, and my decision will not in the least prejudice the Committee on the Bill.
Mr. ALEXANDERI beg to move, to leave out lines 5 to 7 inclusive.
I desire to leave out the words
Gloves made in whole or in part of leather or of fur, and leather or fur cut out ready for sewing into gloves, but not including gloves known as astrakhan gloves or gloves in which leather is used only as trimming or binding.9.0 P.M.The first thing I want to say about this Amendment is that the leather gloves referred to in this part of the Resolution are a very large part of the total sales of gloves in this country, and I say quite frankly that I am very interested in what the position will be as regards the shops and the people of this country as the result of the imposition of this duty. The movement with which I am connected forms part of the retail trade of the country, and they have always found that, whenever duties of this kind are placed upon a particular article, they are bound to pass the duty on to the consumer; and there is not the slightest doubt that as a result of the inclusion of these articles in this Resolution and in the Finance Bill there will be a very serious increase in the charge to the users of these articles. That is the first ground of my objection to the inclusion of these articles in the Resolution. In the second place, I object to their inclusion because, having read the Report of the Committee, I do not feel that the conditions of the White Paper have been satisfied in the case of these particular kinds of gloves—leather gloves, fur gloves, and so on. As has often been pointed out in the course of our Debates on these Resolutions, one of the things that the White Paper lays down in its rules of procedure is that the industry which seeks protection under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure must be able to show that there are abnormal 2650 imports. I take the Report of the Committee itself, and I find that, although of course there is a considerable amount to be said for the view of the Committee with regard to the increase in imports during the last four or five years, yet in 1924 the number of dozen pairs of leather gloves imported was only 901,221, as compared with 1,463,943 in 1913. Therefore, in 1924 the imports were something like half a million dozen pairs less than they were in 1913, and it is difficult to understand why it is suggested that there is abnormality in the imports of this particular kind of gloves.
There is another point on which I should like to have a word from the Government. The words which I am seeking to delete from the Resolution include, I notice, fur gloves. I have read the Report of the Committee very carefully, and I cannot find that they make any reference to fur gloves at all. Could we ask whether any request was made by the special manufacturers of fur gloves, if there are special manufacturers, for inclusion in the duty? I put that point specifically because in the Debate yesterday on another Resolution, on our asking why certain action was not taken on the recommendation of the Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary replied: "The people concerned did not ask for it, and that is that." I would ask him, did the people concerned ask for a duty on fur gloves? If not, why is the action of the Government in including fur gloves so different from their attitude on the other duty with regard to which the Parliamentary Secretary answered last night? I should like to have specific information on that point.
Another to which I want to draw attention with regard to these imports which it is sought to restrain is that although since 1920, as I have already pointed out, there has been a considerable increase in the imports of gloves—they have increased from 259,000 in 1920 to 901,000 in 1924—there has been a far less marked increase in the value of the gloves imported. I think it is generally well known that the leather gloves manufactured by the British industry are always of a somewhat better quality and are sold at a higher price than those which are imported, and the values which are expressed in the figures I have just mentioned, as compared with the imports, 2651 would seem to show, ipso facto, that these goods are not comparable with the goods that it is sought to protect by these duties. That is another reason why we should ask the Government not to include this particular kind of gloves, because it has not satisfied one of the conditions laid down in the White Paper, that there roust be a serious difference in price on a comparable article. I think the position is quite clear that the gloves which it is sought to keep out are not comparable with the British article, and that therefore the duty ought not to be imposed.
Then I am not satisfied that when this duty of 33⅓ per cent. is placed on gloves the Government will also take proper steps to protect the consumer. I mentioned just now that the increased price would be charged to the consumer. Of the trades in the country to-day probably none is more flourishing than the distributive trade, especially in the large London stores, and I have not the slightest doubt that in respect of leather gloves, for which there is a great demand, the great stores will be able to make a very much larger margin of profit out of the consumer on the increased amount of turnover. There has been no indication yet from the Board of Trade that they are prepared to take adequate steps to protect the consumer from any undue charges made as the result of the imposition of the duty under the procedure which has been laid down by the Board of Trade. For that reason I should want to omit these particular articles from the Resolution in the absence of any statement from the Government as to the steps they will take adequately to protect the consumer. I mention that especially because I notice in a pamphlet—
§ I agree I have not a very authentic basis for it—which has been circulated on the Safeguarding of Industries that the statement is attributed to the President of the Board of Trade that the Board of Trade is not concerned with merchants' profits. I think that is a rather serious position. If the Board of Trade are going to impose duties for the benefit prima facie of producers, and those duties enable a larger profit to be made out of the consumers, it is a very great pity that we should have a public announcement from the Board of Trade that they are not concerned with merchants' profits, although apparently they will be able to give protection to the actual producers of the commodity on which the duty is proposed.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter that is relevant to any one of these duties. The sole question now is whether this description of gloves should come under the duty or not. The hon. Member's argument would really apply to the price of any article under any duty similar to that which is now proposed. It is an argument for a general discussion.
Mr. ALEXANDERI accept that at once. I was concerned to move this Amendment because of the position of the user of leather gloves. I know something about the extent of the trade in the country. But in view of what you say I will not pursue that point except that it will be a further ground of my objection to the inclusion of these lines of gloves in the Resolution.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 126.
2655| Division No. 456.] | AYES. | [9.10 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Boothby. R. J. G. | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Sowater, Sir T. Vansittart | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Apsley, Lord | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cope, Major William |
| Atkinson, C. | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bullock, Captain M. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Caine, Gordon Hall | Crookshank, Col. c. de W. (Berwick) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Campbell, E. T. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Cassels, J. D. | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. |
| Bethell, A. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Drewe, C. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Blundell, F. N. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Jacob, A. E. | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Jephcott, A. R. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Rye, F. G. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lamb, J. Q. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Fanshawe, Commander G. D. | Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Finburgh, S. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Fleming, D. P. | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. | Loder, J. de V. | Savery, S. S. |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Looker, Herbert William | Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfres W) |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Ganzoni, sir John | Lougher, L. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Gates, Percy | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Skelton, A. N. |
| Gee, Captain R. | Lumley, L. R. | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I.of W.) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Grace, John | Macintyre, Ian | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | McLean, Major A. | Storry Deans, R. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Grotrian, H Brent | Macquisten, F. A. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Gunston, Captain D. w. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Malone, Major P. B. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) | Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn | Tasker, Major R. Inigo |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Merriman, F. B. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Neville, R. J. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Nuttall, Ellis | Wells, S. R. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Pease, William Edwin | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Pennefather, Sir John | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Howard, Captain Hon. Donald | Perring, William George | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n) | Pielou, D. P. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Preston, William | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Price, Major C. W. M. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Radford, E. A. | |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Ramsden, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Lord Stanley and Captain |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Remer, J. R. | Margesson. |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Rice, Sir Frederick | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Day, Colonel Harry | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Dennison, R. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Duckworth, John | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Baker, Walter | Dunnico, H. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Barr, J. | Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Kelly, W.T. |
| Batey, Joseph | Fenby, T. D. | Kennedy, T. |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Forrest, W. | Kirkwood, D. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gillett, George M. | Lansbury, George |
| Broad, F. A. | Gosling, Harry | Lawson, John James |
| Bromfield, William | Greenall, J | Lee, F. |
| Bromley, J. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Lindley, F. W. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Livingstone, A. M. |
| Buchanan, G. | Groves, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, T. W. | Lunn, William |
| Charleton, H. C | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) |
| Clowes, S. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Mackinder, W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Halt, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Clynes, Right Hon. John R. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | March, S. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) |
| Compton, Joseph | Hurdle, George D. | Montague, Frederick |
| Connolly, M. | Hartthorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Cove, w. G. | Heyday, Arthur | Murnin, H. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Oliver, George Harold |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, G. H. | Palin, John Henry |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Paling, W. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Snell, Harry | Warne, G. H. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Potts, John S. | Stamford, T. W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Ritson, J. | Sutton, J. E. | Weir, L. M. |
| Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | Taylor, R. A. | Westwood, J. |
| Saklatvala, Shapurji | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) | Whiteley, W. |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thurtle, E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Scurr, John | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sexton, James | Townend, A. E. | Windsor, Walter |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C P. | Wright, W. |
| Smillie, Robert | Varley, Frank B. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Viant, S. P. | |
| Smith. H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Wallhead, Richard C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen | Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes. |