HC Deb 23 June 1925 vol 185 cc1376-97
Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

This Clause deals with the proposed duty of 33⅓ per cent. on lace imported into this country. On the last occasion we had the advantage of considerable Debate upon this topic. Undoubtedly the proposal of the Bill was made because of the depressed condition of the lace industry in Nottingham and in one or two other centres. This is one of the first proposals under the new Memorandum of the Safeguarding of Industries Committee's Report which superseded the terms of the old Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. In the previous Debate I said that we recognised that there were undoubted difficulties in the lace industry of Great Britain at the present time. I want to make clear on this occasion also that if we believed for a moment that the remedy which is now proposed was one which was strictly in the interests of this or any other industry and would revive employment, undoubtedly we should be amongst the first to support it. But we are compelled by every analysis of this proposal to object to the remedy which the Government have proposed. It is not denied that the lace trade has been passing through a time of depression; but I invite any hon. Member to study the two Reports of the Committee set up originally under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act, and later to ascertain whether there was any reason for a change in the Committee's opinion, in the light of present conditions. I invite hon. Members to study the reports and to deny that the difficulties of the lace industry are not to-day very largely due to causes which this Clause by no stretch of the imagination will cure.

It is plain that the lace industry is suffering from a widespread change in fashion, that in point of fact the demand for this commodity has largely decreased in this country and in other lands. Moreover, it seems to me unlikely that in the near future that demand will revive. In the next place lace is being sent to Great Britain under advantageous conditions of export from other countries, because of the inferior labour conditions, and in the second place because of the exchange advantage which these foreign countries enjoy. Taking first the question of depression, no hon. Member, however strong a Protectionist, can argue for a single moment that a mere change in fashion should be the groundwork or the reason for a new departure in our fiscal system. I have heard many arguments put forward on behalf of Protection in my time and some of the strangest of them have been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under his present so-called Free Trade auspices, but I never heard anybody suggest that a change of fashion in the demand for a commodity was to be a reason for a tariff and for a departure from our recognised fiscal system. Yet, in fact, this is the condition of affairs in which we find ourselves to-night, because both of these Reports emphasise the fact that a very great change has taken place in the fashion in this commodity, and that it is largely for that reason that the demand has fallen off. That, of course, is no basis at all.

Under the looser provisions of this new Memorandum—some people regard them as stricter provisions, but they are much looser in some ways—two conditions have to be satisfied. One of these is that you must retain within this country a substantial proportion of this commodity which you are importing from abroad and, secondly, it must be shown that the retention for home consumption is detrimental in competition with what you are producing within Great Britain. It is a, very remarkable fact that on these two central conditions, which I do not imagine the President of the Board of Trade disputes, this proposal absolutely fails. The Committee itself on the first point makes it plain that, taking three years round about 1914 and three very recent years, the amount retained in the first three years was about £1,600,000 worth of this commodity in Great Britain and in the later three years only about £749,000 worth, so that, plainly, on the retention of the commodity within Great Britain, which is an important element in the new conditions laid down, this proposal absolutely fails. It must be shown in the next place that the retention of the commodity means an acute and difficult com-petition with the article itself as produced in Great Britain, but the Committee themselves undermined that argument in every way, because they say, in effect, that you have a restricted market all round for lace and that what has taken place is that within this restricted market you have the foreign commodity, but nevertheless a foreign commodity largely reduced in its aggregate entry into Great Britain.

The two conditions entirely disappear, and, as I tried to show when we argued this matter on a former occasion, with the disappearance of these two fundamental conditions of the test laid down by the White Paper, disappear also three or four succeeding tests of importance that had to be satisfied according to the Prime Minister's statement in this House before any industry got the benefit of this safeguarding legislation. These things have never seriously been met in Debate, and hon. Members have been compelled to fall back upon the state of unemployment in this industry which we all deplore. But I strongly dispute that it can be assisted by a tariff at the present time. What are the other two points, and the only other two which I will take time to describe in this Debate. Hon. Members say that these goods are coming to this country and enjoying the advantage of the cheaper labour by means of which they are produced at Calais and other centres abroad, and, secondly, that they come to this country enjoying the export advantage of a depreciated exchange. Under the old Safeguarding of Industries Act discussed in the memorable days of the Coalition in 1921, you had of course very difficult conditions of that kind, particularly in regard to the exchanges, but even at that time hon. Members on the other side of the House hardly thought this was a method of dealing with the exchange disease, and they did not recommend it as a permanent policy for Great Britain. The argument has very largely changed, because to-day we find ourselves in a new state of affairs.

As regards conditions of labour, no hon. Member, whatever his fiscal faith may be, can say that you are going to improve conditions of labour in any country in the world by restricting the market in which the commodities produced by that labour are sold, yet that is very definitely the policy and the economic doctrine to which the President of the Board of Trade and his lieutenant tie themselves to-night. Of course, I am not surprised, because I have had many encounters in this House with the President of the Board of Trade on Protectionist issues, and I know he is an out-and-out Protectionist. He, at all events does not conceal the fact that he welcomes this proposal because it is one step along that road and on the principle that, if you cannot get a general comprehensive tariff, at all events, you should take everything you can get under the Safeguarding of Industries machinery. That is an understandable attitude but, economically, in this matter it is an impossible and erroneous attitude. I have never heard the President of the Board of Trade suggest that you are going to improve conditions abroad by excluding French or any other lace from Great Britain any more than you are going to improve the conditions of the people in Nottingham, because in the last result the available market for anything depends upon the freedom you can maintain in international trade intercourse and by this device you are definitely restricting that freedom to-day.

As regards depreciated exchanges, I have never been able to get the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to stand up to this proposition, and I make another and almost fervent appeal to them now to answer this question. Are you going to help to remedy the European exchange disease—the depreciated French exchange which is giving them this export advantage—by seeking to exclude this commodity from Great Britain? Remember, the commodity must be excluded if there is to be any real benefit to Nottingham. Of course, the consumers here will pay the extra price, with the tariff included, but unless you largely exclude the foreign commodity, you will not protect the people of Nottingham, or you will only protect them to a very limited extent. How does the President of the Board of Trade suggest that that can help the exchange situation? Remember that in both these reports of the committee the exchange problem is put forward as a substantial part of the case. The President of the Board of Trade knows that this is no remedy at all for the exchange disease. If he puts forward that proposition, he is obliged to run counter to what was said by a distinguished body like the Cunliffe Committee, which did not include one Socialist, and therefore presented a perfectly orthodox and, I should think, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, reliable Report. But if the right hon. Gentleman puts forward the proposition to which I refer, he is required to run counter to that Report and to throw over a great number of his friends in very high quarters who have first-hand knowledge of these economic problems.

So it comes about that he never stands up to that issue at all, but falls back upon unemployment in the industry, upon Protection as a cure, and upon the advantage of developing this safeguarding machinery. There are other remedies which can be found for the difficulties of a trade of this kind. No one interested in Nottingham to-day will deny that very largely because of the change in fashion and a certain failure to adopt devices and provide a variety, which has been provided in other centres, this trade has to some extent lost heart. I regret that as much as any other hon. Member, and I sympathise with the Nottingham people, but the point I am making is that this is no cure for their disease, because you have only to extend this from one industry to another and you are definitely restricting the great international trade field of Great Britain. Your last state will be worse than your first. You will have lost your markets and you will have done nothing to cure unemployment; you will only have aggravated economic disease, and for these reasons I beg to submit this Amendment.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)

I think almost everything which can be said on one side or the other has been said in the many Debates which we have had on the proposal, but it is like the fertility and ingenuity of my right hon. Friend to introduce two elements in the discussion which I do not think have been discussed before, or which I have missed if they have been discussed. His first argument was an argument which I have heard before, namely, that you could not do any good to this industry because it is suffering from a change in fashion. To that I must make the answer which I have made to that argument before—that because you have an industry which is limited both by conditions of fashion and by unfair competition, that does not seem to me to be less but rather more reason for including it in the provisions of a safeguarding proposal if it is entitled to that inclusion at all. Really the right hon. Gentleman's argument is the equivalent of saying, "If it has to meet one difficulty, help it; if it has to meet a combination of difficulties, do not give it any help." I would add with complete sincerity that if you want to give heart to this industry the best way to do so is to give it a chance of doing well in whatever trade is being done. There is nothing which gives one quite so much heart in business as doing more business. No amount of sympathy or expert advice is quite as good a stimulus as doing more business.

Then my right hon. Friend asked was I going to improve conditions in Calais by this proposal. Quite frankly I was not concerned to improve conditions in Calais; I was concerned to improve conditions in Nottingham. My right hon. Friend went on to what was a. novel and interesting point. He said this was a bad proposal because it was designed to remedy the exchange situation in Europe, and that you could not remedy the exchange situation by putting a duty upon an article which comes from a country where there is a depreciated exchange. My answer to that is twofold. In the first place, the object of this proposal is not to put the exchanges right on the Continent, but to protect us from the consequences which we are suffering because the people of the Continent do not put their exchanges right. May I put the converse case to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he would agrees— and he at any rate is entirely pure in finance—that the only way in which you can get an exchange stabilised is to balance your budget and balance your trade. Therefore, it is not within the competence of any outside country to get the exchange of another country right, unless indeed it is in a position to take complete control of its finances, both national and governmental.

May I put the converse of his proposition to the right hon. Gentleman? I do not quite see how he got the exchanges in Europe right by refraining from putting on duties. The exchanges really did not get any better because he did not, because you were without the McKenna Duties or a Lace Duty, and really that argument does not meet the point at all. I have not the figures by me—and the right hon. Gentleman has an even better general acquaintance of the figures of export and import than I have—but I think I am right in saying that the fact in French trade to-day is that French exports have enormously increased since the conclusion of the War, and if you take the trade between France and this country, you will find that the French exports have not only greatly increased in volume, but that they have greatly increased in ratio to our exports to France. Therefore, any argument based on the suggestion that the limitation of a particular class of imports coming from France is likely to prejudice the French exchange, when to-day, the balance of trade in that direction is enormously in favour of France, is not a good argument.

I find it very difficult to meet the desire of the party opposite. An hour or two ago they were saying they wished to challenge us to do something for unemployment, yet when we do one thing which we sincerely believe will be of positive value to employment in a particular place where unemployment at present is very serious indeed, then we are challenged because we are doing something to give employment. Hon. Members really cannot have it both ways, and quite sincerely we shall proceed with this proposal, which, I am sure, will he vindicated again by this House as a very sincere attempt to deal with a very hard case and a very deserving industry.

Captain BENN

I have not any doubt the proposal will be vindicated by the House, because the right hon. Gentleman knows very well he has a large army of servile followers who are all waiting under the excellent management of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip (Commander Eyres Monsell) to pour into the lobbies, whether or not they have heard the arguments or whether or not they know what the Clause is, so there is no doubt the proposal will be what the right hon. Gentleman calls vindicated. Whether it will be vindicated when weighed in the balance of justice and argument is another matter, on which each must form his own. opinion. Before coming to the general question, I would like to ask if I understand that goods that have already been ordered will all be subject to tax if they arrive after the 1st July, or will they not be subject to tax if the contract for them was placed before the Budget was introduced? I have been asked the question, because there is a good deal of Lancashire yarn sent abroad to be made into Swiss lace, and the import of that will be hampered, presumably, to some extent, and people will be injured if the trade is stopped, although it may have begun long before the Budget was thought of. That is a trade point on which I should be glad to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.

In regard to the fashion argument, the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury says: "The trouble in the lace trade is that people do not like lace," and the President of the Board of Trade says: "Lace is going out of fashion, and people will not buy it, so we will tax them till they do buy it." How you will make lace curtains more popular by raising their price is, I confess, a proposition that I do not understand. The right hon. Gentleman does admit, what everybody opposite, ever since the late and lamented Coalition started the idea that you can correct exchanges by import duties, denies, namely, that you cannot possibly correct an exchange by an import duty. He says: "We are to protect ourselves against cheap imports," but he does not explain whether the duty is going to have any effect of making the exchange worse and constantly increasing this danger of dumped imports, until, presumably, at the end we shall have to adopt prohibition to protect ourselves from it. Another point he does not deal with is this: He does not explain how it comes about that France can make such enormous exports of cheap dumped goods. He says it is due to the depreciation of the franc, but he overlooks the fact that the goods in question are all made from cotton, every bit of which has to be imported into France, so that what France gains on her export swings she loses on her import roundabouts. Certainly, when the product is not a home product, the exchange tells as much against as in favour of the country in question.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, whose contributions to our Debates are always so welcome—because, if I may say so, he has an engaging frankness combined with an official knowledge which is rare, and there is a certain reluctance on the part of others to give us the information which he places at the disposal of the House— if he can tell us how exactly we stand about the White Paper, because he will remember that we were under the impression, on this side, that the Government had voluntarily bound themselves by the terms of the White Paper. I am speaking of what is called the Safeguarding Paper. We understood that the Prime Minister had said that he would not grant any of these duties unless the industry conformed to the terms of the White Paper. Presumably, we were wrong, because the recommendation of the Committee in this case was that the industry had not conformed to the terms of the White Paper, and it would be helpful to us if the Parliamentary Secretary could make it clear, officially, whether or not the White Paper has any further binding force, or whether the Government are now in a position to apply this sovereign remedy without regard to the terms of this tiresome and fettering document.

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in an impassioned peroration to his answer to the ex-Financial Secretary, said: "Here are people unemployed, and will you prevent us using a weapon that will protect them against the spectre of unemployment?" Does he really think he is going to create employment by this tariff? It would be very helpful if one could know whether he thinks this duty will really create employment, because, if he does, what are we to think of a Government which, with the unemployed mounting in numbers every week by tens of thousands, knows the remedy—in this case, it is about to apply it for the benefit of the lace industry in Nottingham— is confident of the remedy, and yet will not apply it on a more general scale? We shall have our answer, of course. We do not believe this will create employment. We believe that, if you put men to work in this trade, you will be robbing other trades engaged in export. But if the right hon. Gentleman is sincere when he says that this is a means of creating employment, I say it is the bounden duty of the Government, and especially his duty, as head of the important Department dealing with trade, to give it a more general application, so that at least we may test the value of the theories that are put before the country by the party opposite.

Major COLFOX

Last week I was compelled to give a silent vote on this subject, through my inability to catch the eye of the Chairman of the Committee, and, therefore, I crave the indulgence of the House to allow me to give my own point of view on this matter. At the time of the last election, and of the election before that, I told my constituents that I did not believe that Protection could be shown to be likely to improve the prosperity of the industry of this country, but I said also that, if any industry could, after searching examination, make out a case and prove that a measure of Protection afforded to it would give it more advantage than the disadvantages which might accrue to other industries, then I would be prepared to support Protection for that one industry. At the time of the last election, the Government told the country that they would be prepared to advocate Protection for a given industry after it had passed through the meshes of a very careful net of procedure, which they foreshadowed, and in order to carry out this scheme a Committee was set up to go into all the facts of the industry. Having given the pledges which I did, I consider myself bound by the Report of that Committee. I say "by the Report," because I do not believe that the findings at the end of that Report represent the true facts as sketched by the Report, and, therefore, though I feel myself bound by the Report of the Committee, I do not feel myself bound by the concluding paragraphs. When that Committee was set up, it was asked eight questions. The first was whether the industry was an industry of substantial importance, and the Committee found in the affirmative. The second was: Whether foreign goods of the class or description to which the application relates are being imported into and retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities? On that subject, the Committee found, after hearing evidence, and all the facts and figures having been produced, that: It is clear that imports of cotton lace are not being retained for consumption in the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities. In other words, the industry failed to fulfil the second condition. The third, fourth, and fifth conditions did not apply, since they referred only to the abnormal imports retained in this country, and, therefore, these questions had perforce to be answered by the Committee in the negative. The sixth question was: Whether the applicant industry is being carried on in the United Kingdom with reasonable efficiency and economy? The answer to that was that it was. The seventh question was: Whether the imposition of a duty on goods of the class or description in question would exert a seriously adverse effect on employment in any other industry? The answer was that it would only affect the making-up trade, and the Committee did not think the effect on that trade would be serious. Then we come to the real pith of the whole Report, which is contained in the eighth question and the answer to it. The eighth question was: Whether, having regard to the above conditions"— I stress that phrase— the applicant industry has, in the opinion of the Committee, established a claim to a duty? "Having regard to the above conditions" means the first seven questions asked, and the answer is: The applicants have not been able to answer question (2) in the affirmative, and if an affirmative answer to this question is to be considered a condition precedent to the establishment of a claim to a duty, we con-eider that the applicants have failed to bring their case within the strict terms of the White Paper. 7.0 P.M.

But the eighth question says, "Whether having regard to the above conditions." Therefore really when this Committee was set up it was considered that an affirmative answer was essential to all those eight questions. The Committee having reported that in their view, after having carefully sifted the matter, the applicant industry had failed in five out of the eight conditions, yet recommended that a protective duty should be imposed. It has been claimed, both here this afternoon and in many places outside, that a protective duty such as this one would materially relieve the unemployment situation. Yet we find that there is not any abnormal quantity of this commodity being imported into this country, and therefore, even if all the imports at present arriving in this country were to be prohibited altogether, there could be only a small increase in the employment available.

But this proposal is not for total prohibition. It is only for a substantial measure of protection. Therefore, obviously even that small increase in the available amount of employment will be very largely reduced, and in my mind is likely to disappear altogether. The Committee gives the real reason for the deplorable state of this particular industry. Everybody knows that there is a very large amount of unemployment in this industry and everybody deplores it. The Committee gives us the reason for it. It says there has been serious contraction in the demand for lace embroidery throughout the world, and that serious contraction in demand cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be altered by the imposition of an import duty, since the high rate of unemployment is due to this lack of demand. Obviously—at any rate it is obvious to me—the imposition of a protective duty cannot possibly increase the amount of employment available in that industry, because it cannot possibly increase the demand for the commodity produced by that industry. Therefore, since I felt myself bound to abide by the Report of this Committee which has carefully investigated all the facts of the case, I voted last week against the proposal, and I intend to do so again.

Mr. SPENCER

There is a very interesting passage in the New Testament in which some of the brilliant theologians of the day are trying to confound a man who has been brought under the beneficent influence of Jesus Christ, and who cannot answer. He is not qualified to answer, but he states one thing— One thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see. The hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox), who has just spoken, may be able to put up some very telling arguments based upon the report and the White Paper, but if he goes into the streets of Nottingham and round the quarter where men live who work in the lace industry, they will not be able to answer him, but there is one thing they will be able to tell him. "Can you put us in?" That is really the test with regard to this question, and to take up a non-possumus attitude with regard to this question when you have an industry, rapidly declining and passing away as you have in Nottingham is not a credit to any party.

I would like to call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) to a passage that I read to-day in Benjamin Kidd's "Social Evolution," because in my opinion it fits the position of the Liberal party. I did not leave Liberalism and join the Labour party to have impressed upon me more firmly doctrinnaire Radicalism, and I would like to say that to my friends on the Front Bench. In this particular quotation you have this: Our social phenomena seem to be continually moving beyond theories into unknown territory, and we see the economists following after as best they can and with some lose of self-respect from the onlookers, slowly and painfully adjusting the old arguments and conclusions to the new phenomena. I am not getting any votes in my constituency. I do not think I have a single vote to catch, I do not live in my constituency, I live in Nottingham and see the poverty and distress, and that is the thing that is moving me. I might not be moved by a case which came from Middlesbrough of which I knew nothing, but I am moved by this case. When my hon. and gallant Friend opposite quotes that Report about imports into this country he wants to get down to the real facts. He wants to read the Report through. The Report says this. In 1907 you may take the internal trade in this country or the international trade of the world, if you like, at 100; in 1913 at 53; in 1924 at 25. Let us have a look at the figures and then ask ourselves whether there are, after all, any abnormal imports into this country. In 1913 the total imports of lace and embroidery, cotton and silk was £5,900,000. In 1924 it was £4,700,000. The 53 represents in imports 100. The £4,700,000 represents 79. As against the volume of trade represented, 153 only represents 47 to-day. So you actually get this fact, that, while you have only 79 coming in as against 100 in 1913, you now have only 47.3 as against 100 in that time. Therefore competition is more severe. Though there is less coming in there is less trade to take it. It is because of that fact that the Nottingham people are feeling it most intensely. If this can do anything whatever to rehabilitate trade in Nottingham, a good thing will be done.

I went home with a commercial traveller the other day, and he told me an interesting thing I did not know. We all ought to have known it. He said that already trade was beginning to pick up, not because of the psychological effect upon the manufacturer, but because things had gone a little dearer. There is all this difference between a man and a woman. When a man gets a bargain he runs to his next door neighbour and says, "I got this pair of shoes for 6s." But if it is a woman and she gets it for 6s., it is 12s. She will not buy cheap goods. There is all the difference in the world between a man and a woman. My friend says if lace goes up a bit we will not get people buying it. If the commercial traveller says what is true, that women turn their attention to dearer things instead of cheaper things, there is a possibility of trade nourishing because of that fact. Whether that be true or not, I will make this statement, and no man can deny, that there is a psychological difference between men and women when buying goods for their own wear. I only want to say that I have been moved in this instance to give this vote because of the extreme poverty which surrounds my own home. There are men who have been unemployed for three years, and I want to say it is not a bit of use myself or any man who is better capable of putting the case either for Free Trade or Protection going down to Nottingham and telling the men there that they are going to gain a £1 on the swings and lose 20s. on the roundabouts. That is not effective argument. What they want in that city is work. I am not going to prophesy what effect it will have on the trade, but I have one wish, and that is that as far as that trade is concerned, it may be the turning point, and that instead of declining, the trade may go on to prosperity and engage a larger number of men than it has hitherto done.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

We all appreciate the manner in which the last speaker has spoken all through the Debate, and his anxiety for the people with whom he is acquainted. There are many of us who feel we cannot accept the point of view which he has earnestly and conscientiously put to the House. First of all, he thinks some of us are inclined wholly to entirely old methods. But surely those of us who hold different economic views would not admit for a moment that the application of a tariff is the application of a new arrangement. As a matter of fact, there is probably no older method in economic history than the application of a tariff. I think it goes as far back as Aristotle. Aristotle said that to obtain for oneself a monopoly was, a general principle of finance and that is very largely the dynamic of those who seek to restrict markets by tariffs; to obtain for themselves a monopoly of their own. We cannot admit for a moment that this is applying a new plan to new conditions. With regard to the other interesting point which he made, that a commercial traveller thinks that a woman will buy more lace if the price of lace is higher, it is not my experience of women, who are such efficient domestic Chancellors of the Exchequer. It may be true that women like "dear" things, but I am not so sure that they like expensive things. There is rather a difference between the two.

In regard to the reply to my right hon. Friend by the President of the Board of Trade to-night, I want to say that the President altogether omitted to deal with a point which is one of substance and importance to those of us who are concerned with the ancillary trades, and with the consumer. I have some experience and knowledge of the way in which lace is used in the making-up industry. In the course of the evidence taken on the first occasion by the Committee dealing with lace, I had the honour myself to submit evidence as to what the effect of the duty would be upon the making-up trades. There is not the slightest doubt that, even though the Committee reported, as quoted by the right hon. Member, that the effect will not be very great, it will have a detrimental effect upon the making-up trades in this country.

It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that after all the only way to give help to this industry was by this protective tariff. But if by the tariff you are going to raise the price—and I have not heard a single supporter of this or any similar duty argue that it will not raise the price of the article, especially by such a heavy rate of duty as 33⅓ per cent.—is it not perfectly obvious that you are going to restrict the market, and certainly not going to help the industry? In regard to the change of fashion, apart from the change of habit, let me say that we, in our experience of the trade, have again and again found, where we have desired to stimulate the demand for articles made up with lace in spite of the change in fashion, a lack of initiative on the part of the British producer as compared with the foreign producer of lace. Again and again when we would have desired to obtain the British article, we have been unable to get a ready sale for it, because it could not compete in taste and in new ideas with goods coming from foreign markets.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said that we were never going by protective tariffs of this sort to raise in any degree the conditions of the workers abroad, such as, for example, in Calais. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not concerned with the conditions of the industry of Calais; he is concerned with the conditions at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but let me put the Labour point of view. Unless you get something like solidarity of labour conditions throughout other countries you are never going to be able to attain any standard, or maintain the position which we as the working-class party in this country may win for ourselves by organisation and agitation over a period of years. So as to the point put by many of my hon. Friends on this side, and with sincerity, that they come to this fiscal question with open minds, willing to have new light upon new problems, and to decide for themselves in regard to a particular industry what their course shall be, let me put this: The admission is made to-night by the Protectionist President of the Board of Trade that he is not concerned for one moment with the conditions of the workers abroad, however much those conditions abroad may seriously react upon the conditions and standard of life in this country.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK

Why did not the Government of the hon. Gentleman ratify the Eight Hours Convention?

Mr. ALEXANDER

If my noble Friend's colleagues had not been so anxious to kill that Government, we would have got to our goal much more rapidly than appears likely in recent discussions at Geneva. I want to impress the point upon all my hon. Friends who are concerned, as I am, with the maintenance of a general standard of life among our workers and to keep up the standard of life abroad. On that point, I think the answer of the President of the Board of Trade failed altogether.

There are other points, but, in conclusion, I will confine myself to one, and that is, I think, a very important point. Hon. Friends and myself are engaged in pressing upon the Government at the present time the problem of unemployment. There are some of us who hold the view that the very rapid increase of unemployment during the last few weeks is likely to develop, because there has been far too rapid a return to a policy concerned with this Finance Bill or in connection with it—the return to the gold standard—and that, unless other conditions are re-arranged, the effect of that policy will be that unemployment will still further increase. What had the President of the Board of Trade to say to this serious question? He said that the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh about the exchanges did not hold water, or words to that effect. He said the exchanges depended upon the other countries concerned balancing their budgets, and balancing their trade. There has not been any more authoritative pronouncement in recent years upon the general question of the exchanges and on the return to the gold standard than the report of the Cunliffe Committee. The report of the Brussels Financial Conference of 1920 was held to confirm the Cunliffe Report, which said that it was necessary to secure the withdrawal of all artificial economic barriers preventing

the unrestricted interchange of commodities between nations.

Yet here is the Government which has intensified the problem of unemployment by a hasty return to the gold standard, at the same time, instead of following that policy to give a free exchange of goods as a corollary to the return of the gold standard, setting up protective tariffs and additional barriers to the exchange of goods between the countries of the world. This is a very wrong thing in the view of those experts. In the light of all these factors we think the President of the Board of Trade has failed to give an answer to those points put by my right hon. Friend to-night, and for that reason we shall press the Amendment.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE

The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) has made an amusing speech, in which he tells us that he is not moved by theory but by what he sees. Perhaps he remembers the story of the signalman or the engine driver who, when his little girl was on the line, had to choose between saving the life of his child and risking the lives of perhaps 100 passengers in the train, or watch over the safety of the passengers and chance the child being safe. I want to put one simple, straightforward question to the President of the Board of Trade, or to the right hon. Gentleman who has been described from these benches as his frank and charming assistant, and my question is this: Does this Safeguarding White Paper stand or does it not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 146.

Division No. 203.] AYES. [7.26 p.m
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brassey, Sir Leonard
Albery, Irving James Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Bennett, A. J. Briggs, J. Harold
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Bentinck, Lord Hanry Cavendish- Briscoe, Richard George
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Berry, Sir George Brittain, Sir Harry
Astor, Viscountess Bethell, A. Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Atholl, Duchess of Birchall, Major J. Dearman Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Buckingham, Sir H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Blades, Sir George Rowland Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Boothby, R. J. G. Burman, J. B.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Burton, Colonel H. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Philipson, Mabel
Butt, Sir Alfred Harland, A. Pielou, D. P.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hartington, Marquess of Pilcher, G.
Campbell, E. T. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Cassels, J. D. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Preston, William
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Haslam, Henry C. Price, Major C. W. M.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hawke, John Anthony Raine, W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Ramsden, E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Chapman, Sir S. Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Remer, J. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rentoul, G. S.
Chilcott, Sir Warden Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) Rice, Sir Frederick
Christie, J. A. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Clarry, Reginald George Homan, C. W. J. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Clayton, G. C. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Salmon, Major I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hopkins, J. W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Hume, Sir G. H. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cooper, A. Duff Hurd, Percy A. Sandon, Lord
Cope, Major William Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Savery, S. S.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Jacob, A. E. Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Jephcott, A. R. Shepperson, E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Skelton, A. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Kindersley, Major Guy M. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry King, Captain Henry Douglas Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement Sprot, Sir Alexander
Dalkeith, Earl of Lamb, J. Q. Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Daizlel, Sir Davison Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Loder, J. de V. Storry Deans, R.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Lougher, L. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lowe, Sir Francis William Strickland, Sir Gerald
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Lumley, L. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Lynn, Sir R. J. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Drewe, C. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Edmondson, Major A. J. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Elliot, Captain Walter E. McLean, Major A. Templeton, W. P.
Elveden, Viscount. MacMillan, Captain H. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Thomson, Sir W. Mitchel- (Croydon, S.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Tinne, J. A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Falls, Sir Charles F. Merriman, F. B. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Meyer, Sir Frank Turton, Edmund Russborough
Fermoy, Lord Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Fielden, E. B. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fleming, D. P. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Forestier-Walker, L. Moles, Thomas Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Fraser, Captain lan Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Frece, Sir Walter de Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Moore, Sir Newton J. Wells, S. R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Morden, Col. W. Grant White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Ganzoni, Sir John Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Gates, Percy Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Murchison, C. K. Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Neville, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Goff, Sir Park Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gower, Sir Robert Nuttall, Ellis Wise, Sir Fredric
Grant, J. A. Oakley, T. Womersley, W. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Pennefather, Sir John Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Gretton, Colonel John Penny, Frederick George Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Grotrian, H. Brent Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Perkins, Colonel E. K. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Perring, William George Major Hennessy and Captain Mar-
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) gesson.
Hanbury, C. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Potts, John S.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Riley, Ben
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hardie, George D. Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George Harris, Percy A. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hastings, Sir Patrick Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayday, Arthur Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Scrymgeour, E.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Sexton, James
Barnes. A Hirst, G. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Hore-Belisha, Leslie Sitch, Charles H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Smillie, Robert
Briant, Frank Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Bromfield, William John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Bromley, J. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clowes, S. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stephen, Campbell
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Kelly, W. T. Sutton, J. E.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kennedy, T. Taylor, R. A.
Compton, Joseph Kenyon, Barnet Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Connolly, M. Kirkwood, D. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cove, W. G. Lansbury, George Thurtle, E.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, F. W. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Livingstone, A. M. Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Wallhead, Richard C.
Duncan. C. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Mackinder, W. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
England, Colonel A. MacLaren, Andrew Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Fenby, T. D. March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Forrest, W. Maxton, James Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gillett, George M. Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Gosling, Harry Morris, R. H. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Murnin, H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T. Naylor, T. E. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Windsor, Walter
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Palin, John Henry Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Groves, T. Paling, W.
Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guest. J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Warne.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Ponsonby, Arthur