§ 9. Mr. W. HIRSTasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total ascertained cost to date of inquiries which have been, or are being, conducted under the Government's Safeguarding of Industry proposals; what is the total estimated cost of such inquiries for the financial year 1925–26; and whether it will be necessary to submit Supplementary Estimates?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe total ascertained cost to date, chargeable to Board of Trade Votes, of inquiries under the Safeguarding of Industry proposals, is £737. The total cost of such inquiries for the financial year 1925–26 cannot be estimated, since the number and nature of the committees which may be set up before the close of the year cannot be foreseen; but it is not expected that they will necessitate the submission of a Supplementary Estimate.
§ 10. Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any complaints as to the constitution of the committees set up to consider applications for the imposition of duties in connection with the Government's safeguarding of industry proposals; whether any of the persons appointed for this purpose are known to hold definite views in favour of the Government's policy; and whether the Government has laid down any definite procedure to be fallowed in the selection of the personnel of such committees?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the remainder of the question, the policy of the Government is to safeguard such industries as are shown by a full and impartial inquiry to have a good case, and the committees are constituted of such persons as appear to me to be suited to conduct such inquiry. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the 1126 thanks of the Government to the committees for the thorough manner in which they have conducted these inquiries. No more definite procedure has been laid down than is indicated in Section III of the White Paper.
Captain BENNOn what principle is the right hon. Gentleman proceeding in excluding witnesses from the right of giving evidence before these committees?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have not proceeded on any principle, because the hearing or not hearing of witnesses is left, very wisely, to the discretion of these impartial committees. They have admitted such evidence as they considered relevant, and excluded that which they considered irrelevant.
Captain BENNDoes that mean that no Regulations have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman's Department for their guidance as to the exclusion of witnesses?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNone other than the general indication which I gave in Debate in this House.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to get an impartial inquiry by a committee which includes persons who have expressed themselves in favour of safeguarding schemes?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think that that is a most improper suggestion to make. I have not concerned myself with the political opinion of any single person on a committee, and the committees have included, not only people who may be Protectionist in their policy, but members attached to the hon. Gentleman's own party.
§ Mr. ALEXANDERMay I ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]— does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that inquiries of this kind, having so important an effect upon the whole community, ought to be of a judicial character?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think they are of a judicial character, but if by that the hon. Member means that no one should take part in them who may ever have expressed any opinion, one way or another, on a fiscal matter, he might 1127 find it very difficult even to set up one committee.
§ 12. Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the evidence given during the proceedings of the inquiries under the Safeguarding of Industries applications?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERFor reasons of economy, the evidence given at these inquiries is not printed but is only in typescript, and only sufficient copies have been made hitherto for the use of the parties appearing before the committees and the members of the committees. The evidence is usually very voluminous, and I doubt if any very useful purpose would be served by taking the course proposed.
§ Mr. MACKINDERWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us how Members of this House can make up their minds on such a very important subject without seeing the evidence?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERYes, Sir; in the way in which they did under the previous Safeguarding of Industries Act and in the most recent cases—on the Report of the Committee.
§ Mr. MACKINDERMay I put the question again? I am asking for the Reports of the Committee, and, if the President of the Board of Trade is refusing the Reports of the Committees, how can—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, I am not.
§ Mr. MACKINDER—when I speak of the Reports, I mean the evidence—how is it possible for the House to make up its mind without getting the evidence?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI propose to follow the precedent which has been followed under the previous Acts, and publish the Reports of the Committees. That was done under the Safeguarding of Industries Act of the Coalition Government, and I do not see any reason to alter it.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs it not a fact that this House must make up its mind upon evidence, and, if we are not to have the evidence, how can we make up our minds?