HC Deb 15 July 1926 vol 198 cc632-702

Will you follow your usual practice, Mr. Speaker, of indicating the procedure which you intend to adopt on this Clause? I think the procedure that will be convenient to us would be to have a general discussion on .an early Amendment, and then take the further Amendments at a later stage.


I understand that Members of the House are under an agreement to finish this stage of the Bill by about 12 o'clock. It will be my endeavour not to pass over any Amendments. That procedure will entail the cooperation of hon. Members, in the form of brevity. I propose, both on Clause 11 and on Clause 15, to take the first Amendment, to leave out the Clause, which will permit of some general discussion on principle. In putting the Question, I shall protect the other Amendments on the Paper. From the number of Amendments that are set down, it will require concentration on the part of the House, in order to deal with the whole of the points.


I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.

Hon. Members who were present when the Bill was in Committee will remember that when we came to this Clause it was fathered by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) who gave us an interesting account of his personal connection with the industry, and also some interesting details of the wrapping paper problem. The thing that struck me in connection with the hon. Member making a statement of that kind, was that almost any hon. Member connected with any similar industry could get up in the House and put forward a case for special privilege in regard to the safeguarding of the industry, if it had to be based upon evidence as slender as that which was given by the hon. Member. The Minister seemed to be depending very largely upon the hon. Member for support of the case. Since then, I have received a communica- tion from certain gentlemen who claim to speak for several paper manufacturing companies, who give a distinct negative to some of the statements made by the Minister. No doubt the Minister has seen the communication from these gentlemen, who claim to speak for certain companies.

Among the points that the Minister made, was one dealing with the manufacture of corrugated paper from straw. He made a very patriotic gesture, and said that he preferred to have the paper made from English straw rather than from straw that came from Holland. I hope that when he replies to-day he will give an answer to the position adopted by the writers of the letter which has been sent to us, because they definitely state that there is no choice to be made, because none of this paper is manufactured in this country. In another connection, they seem to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, and in that regard an explanation from him would be useful, because a complaint has been made that those who are specially interested in this class of paper have had no chance of placing their case before the Committee. The Minister said that it was taken for granted that anyone who wanted to place their views before the Committee could do so, but the writers of this communication distinctly state that when they sought to do that, they were told by telephone from the Board of Trade that this paper was not to be included in the list of papers to be scheduled for duty, and, therefore, they did not trouble to appear. Now, that the kind of paper in which they are specially interested has been included, they are aggrieved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some explanation on that point. Another point they mention is, that when the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) claimed that a group of manufacturers were in opposition to the duty, he was told by the right hon. Gentleman that that was not so. The representatives of these branches of manufacture came to see the Minister to represent their views, yet when the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth made his statement here, the right hon. Gentleman told him that he was quite mistaken, that there was this opposition from a majority of the manufacturers of this special class of paper.

4.0 P.M.

In one or two cases the argument for introducing this duty is based on certain figures, but with great truthfulness the Committee themselves state that the figures are so difficult to obtain that they are practically untrustworthy, and, strange to say, although they say the figures are of little value, they use those very figures as part of the argument in support of their case for recommending a duty. It seems to me an extraordinary thing to find a case supported in such a manner. On page 10 of the Report I notice a strange reference to the position of Germany, The competition of Germany is one of the factors in connection with this industry, and reference is made to the alteration in the German situation when Germany's advantage of a depreciated currency came to an end and they found themselves with their currency on a stable basis. That naturally has had an effect on the industry, and the amount of paper coming from Germany has decreased. The Committee, however, go on to say, without a word of evidence to support it, that times may change and that more paper may be coming in again from Germany. But why should that be so? Everybody who knows Germany knows that seemingly her monetary difficulties are at an end. There has been a rise in wages there, and I cannot imagine that there is going to be a fall in those wages. Yet a statement of this kind is just put forward, without any argument to support it, and on that statement the Committee cheerfully pass on their way and think they have proved something in connection with competition from Germany.

There is another rather extraordinary case, where they refer, in the first Appendix, to some figures dealing with the number of persons employed in the industry. If you want an industry in this country safeguarded, you have to prove that it is an industry of substantial importance, and one of the considerations is that there should be a considerable number of people employed in it. The Committee give the figures from 1920 to 1924, and they point out that there has been a decrease during that period in the number of persons employed, but if hon. Members will look at the figures given, and compare the output with the number of persons employed, they will see an extraordinary state of affairs, especially if they ignore the first year, where the output seems to have been enormous, compared with the number of people employed. In 1921, the number employed was 5,049, and the output of paper was roughly 71,000 tons, but in 1924 the number employed was 4,352, but the output was much larger, although the number of people employed was smaller than 1921. The supposition is that, whether by machinery or in some other way, there had been an improvement in the methods used, so that a smaller number of people could do the work that was being done previously by a larger number. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the trade to say whether or not that 'was the case. My argument, however, is that the Committee base their case directly on the number of people employed, and if we are going to do that, and to ignore questions such as the improvement of machinery and the consequent increase of output, I do not think it is quite a fair argument.

Several pages of the Report are taken up with an account of the wage position in other countries, but I think the whole of the wage position ought to be considered in the light of the new views that are now being held on the whole question of wages. It used to be held that if you had men paid at a lower wage in one country as compared with another country, that was a misfortune for those who were employing the higher paid men, but it is hardly needful to remind the House of the reports which have recently come from America, drawing attention to the close connection between high wages and industrial prosperity. Therefore, it seems to me that, when we look at these figures, we have to ask ourselves whether the fundamental argument on which they are based is correct and whether an industry that is paying low wages is necessarily in a better condition than an industry which is paying high wages. Certainly the position of the United States of America does not seem in any way to justify the old ideas on that question. As I have said, one of the points that has to be proved before an industry can be safeguarded is that it is an industry of substantial importance, but it all depends on what you mean by "substantial ,importance." You have here an industry employing about 70,000 people and a capital of about £5,000,000 in machinery alone, and we are also told the number of companies that are interested in the industry, but I do not know what is really meant by "substantial importance." The only point which I think can finally settle the question is the one that comes up later, and that is a comparison with other industries affected by giving a special privilege to this industry.

In regard to the question of exceptional competition, if you take the pre-War year of 1913 and compare it with the year 1925, although I know there have been variations in between, you will find that there has been hardly any increase at all, as compared with the pre-War position, in the amount of these goads imported into this country. The figures are 201,000 tons in 1913 and 216,000 tons in 1925. Therefore, you cannot say that is exceptional competition if you take those figures and try to base an argument on an increase as small as that. I understand that the question of unfair competition is not based so much on the question of the exchanges, and the Committee have very wisely shifted their ground from that position, because the three countries most affected are Sweden, Germany, and Norway. Of course, the Swedish exchange has not been of any advantage to the Swedish exporters. At present it is practically at par. The position in Germany is much the same, and the position in Norway, although it is some advantage to the Norwegians, certainly is nothing to compare with the position in countries like France and Belgium. There is also the question of the reasonable efficiency of the industry in this country, but there I did not gain much from the Report of the Committee, as it does not go very fully into that question.

If you look at the whole of the case built up so far on the points I have mentioned—namely, a small industry to start with, an industry that you cannot say is meeting very severe competition from the Continent, and an industry that certainly is not suffering to any great extent from the position of the exchanges, the whole case for the duty really comes down to the effect on other industries of safeguarding this industry. There, it seems to me, taking into account the vastly greater interests concerned in the other industries, that the case, feeble as it is, finally collapses. You find something like 20 other important manufacturing interests, employing 400,000 people, that in some ways would be affected prejudicially, it may be only to a. slight extent, by the passing of this Clause. There are many industries which are using the paper on which we are going to put a duty as the raw material of their manufacture. There are envelope makers and others, but the chief case made during the Committee stage of this Clause was that made by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who dealt with the case of the confectionery and chocolate makers. I do not want to go over the figures that he gave, but I would remind House that opposition has been raised to this duty by those interested in the confectionery and chocolate trades. I have had representations made to me from two industries at least in the constituency that I represent, and, as the hon. Member for York said, this question affects indirectly something like 400,000 workers, and it will have an effect on the imports of chocolates from abroad. Therefore, you arrive at a very peculiar position.

Hon. Members opposite argue that you should not purchase goods from other countries, but, as the hon. Member for York pointed out, you finally arrive at this position: If a manufacturing firm, say, in my constituency buy their paper from abroad, as the Bill now stands, if they buy it in bulk, they will have to pay a duty on the paper, but if the same paper is used by some firm that is manufacturing in another country, say, France, for wrapping up their goods, and the paper comes in in small pieces wrapped round chocolates, for instance, that paper is going to be exempted from duty. The result is that the manufacturer in this country who is buying paper in bulk pays a duty, but the manufacturer in other countries does not, simply because the paper is coming in in such small quantities that it is impossible to find out exactly what the duty should be. As the hon. Member for York pointed out, it does leave the whole question in a somewhat peculiar position. I did not gather that any answer was made to the hon. Member for York. All he was told was that nothing could be done and he must be satisfied with that. As far as I know the hon. Member is satisfied whether the large interests connected with this industry in his constituency are equally satisfied is not a matter for me to judge.


I must not interrupt the hon. Member, who has been good enough to quote largely from a speech I made in Committee, but he must not assume that I am satisfied.


I am glad to hear the hon. Member is not satisfied, and I hope he will show his dissatisfaction this afternoon in supporting the Amendment I am now moving, which will solve the whole problem. I only take this as an illustration, because the hon. Member placed his facts clearly before the Committee, and it only represents the effect of this legislation upon other industries. To my mind it is an absolute condemnation of the whole of the proposals. Anyone who is trading with France, Germany or Belgium has only to say that he is trading with France, and that settles one part. Then if there is so much money in the industry that settles part number two, and the Committee which investigated these cases would really, I think, be satisfied with any evidence that was brought before them. You have only to put up certain figures, which are untrustworthy, but they are good enough for the Committee. If you take one industry alone and apply a little piece of protection then it is going to be beneficial to that industry as against all other industries which have no protection at all. The people employed in the trade will be benefited as compared with many other trades indirectly associated with it. If you take out two or three trades and give a privilege to them you can prove that it is a benefit to those particular trades, but the Committee have entirely failed to consider whether in giving this favour to a limited number of people they are not going to injure a number of other trades. The selection of small trades and giving them a preference is thoroughly pernicious, and in this case it is not proved that the interests of those concerned in the paper-wrapping industry have been considered as against those interested in the far larger industies and the effect it is going to have on them.


a beg to second the Amendment.

I desire to enter my most emphatic protest that Members of this House, who are charged with the duty of passing legis- lation which may be for the good or ill of industries in general, who are asked to consider questions affecting industry as a whole, are not able to have access to the evidence given in support of these particular proposals. We get a small Report, like the one which has been issued, largely written with the intention of bearing out the conclusions arrived at. It is a purely ex parte statement, and on the slender evidence given in these pages hon. Members are asked to give decisions which affect hundreds and thousands of workers in the country and millions of the population. We ought not to be asked to give a dicision on a question on which volumes of evidence have been taken without that evidence being placed at the disposal of hon. Members. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will take notice of my protest, and will give hon. Members an opportunity of reading what has been said. I regret that I shall not be in a position to move the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which is that the duty should be imposed for a period of one year only. I feel that we ought to have an opportunity of ascertaining how this duty works, whether it bears out and justifies the decision of the Committee.

I have been reading the Report with great care and interest. I find that unskilled workers in this industry get 48s. per week, and that the minimum is the amount that is paid; they do not get more. That is not enough for an unskilled worker. I contend that this proposal ought to be in operation for a year only in order to see if it does the industry any good; whether it increases wages, or does any harm to other industries. A skilled worker receives is. 6d. per hour and bonus. I do not know whether they get a bonus in all cases. It is rather a loose statement, it does not say why or how they get the bonus. And that only emphasises the point I have made, that hon. Members should have access to the evidence that was given. The hon. Member below me (Mr. Hall-Caine), who knows as much about the paper trade as anyone has any right to know, has offered to allow me to look at the evidence given to the Committee, but that is not enough. The hon. Member is in possession of the evidence which other hon. Members of the House of Commons cannot get. The hon. Member says that skilled workers get 1s. an hour bonus, but we do not know what it is for, whether it is for increased production, or for better production. We should have all this evidence. Here is an industry paying 48s. a week, and I submit that the duty ought to be in operation for one year so that we may be convinced that it is really a provision which we ought to have, that it will really increase wages and diminish unemployment.

The industry, we are told, employs about 7,000 people, but that the raw material finds work for about 300,000 people. It means that an industry employing 7,000 people is going to put a tax on subsidiary industries employing 300,000 people. There has been no increase in unemployment from 1924 to 1926 in this industry. Far from being an increase of unemployment, there has been an increase of 4 per cent. in the employed people, and there is no evidence that production has gone down. I understand that from 1922 to 1923 there was an increase of 3,000 tons in production, and comparing 1922 with 1924 there was an increase of 1,000 tons. The whole proposal is full of anomalies. In the Committee stage a piece of this material was handed down. It seemed to be harder even than wood, harder than rubber, you could make a noise on these benches with it. It was supposed to be used in connection with electrical fittings, but it was called wrapping paper, and is going to be taxed as though it was brown paper used in the shops. The whole position is absolutely stupid, and the application is not justified. It is interesting to read on page 19 of the Report: Whether such exceptional competition comes largely from countries where the conditions are so different from those in this country as to render the competition unfair. Competition for the purpose of such inquiry is not to be deemed to be unfair unless it arises from one or more of the following causes: (a) Depreciation of currency operating so as to create an export bounty. There are no subsidies, aid if we read further down on the same page we find this statement: It was stated by an opposing witness that the German Government makes some concession on its State-owned railways in favour of consignments sent by rail to German ports of shipment, but that many mills nevertheless prefer to send by water. The concession is apparently not a matter of significance. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment. No single argument can be put forward for a duty on wrapping paper that could not be put forward in respect of any other industry. I end as I began. As long as I am a member of this House I shall raise my voice in protest if hon. Members do not have an opportunity of reading and studying the evidence given in these cases before we are asked to consider and vote on a matter of importance like this. We should know what has been said for and against the proposal in order that we may vote in the right direction.


The hon. Member who has moved the omission of this Clause made ample and very courteous references to the speech, or speeches, I made in Committee on this Clause, but he added that I appear to be satisfied with the replies which were given. If he will be good enough to look either at the Divisions Lists which were taken in the Committee stage or at the Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper to-day, he will hardly feel justified in arriving at the conclusion that my satisfaction was complete. So far from being completely satisfied, I am in a very considerable dilemma in regard to this Clause as a whole. This Clause proposes a duty of 16⅔d. or, roughly, 2d. in the shilling on wrapping paper. I am perfectly free to admit that I think this proposal is a very questionable application of the whole principle of safeguarding. I am one of those who think that in the interests of British industry the safeguarding principle is one which may be occasionally applied equitably; but I also think that the principle of safeguarding is one which ought to be applied with the greatest possible caution and circumspection, and I submit that in its application one dominating consideration should be observed. That dominating consideration, in my view, is this: whether the protective duty—because it is a protective duty—while safeguarding and assisting one industry, does not operate to the detriment of other industries of equal or greater importance.

By this duty you are proposing to confer a measure of protection on an industry which I am given to understand employs about 7,000 workers. That is not an inconsiderable number, but it is certainly inconsiderable in relation to those other industries which will be affected by the imposition of this duty. Wrapping paper, as was pointed out frequently in the debate on the Committee stage of this Bill, and to some extent as far as I remember on the Second Reading as well—is the raw material in about 20 other important manufacturing industries, which employ in the aggregate, not 7,000 workers, but as I am informed about 400,000 workers. Among those workers there are more in my own constituency alone who will be affected by this duty than there are in the wrapping paper industry. There are 9,000 persons in my own constituency who are directly affected by this proposed duty, and there are many more who will be indirectly affected by its imposition.

I do not need to remind this House or the world that the constituency which I represent is one of the most important, if not the most important, centre in the confectionery and chocolate trades. Those whom I represent will he affected in two ways. On the one hand, they will be affected by the proposal which is now before the House. A bounty is to be given to imported chocolate, because this duty on wrapping paper is not in certain cases to be collected. There is a proviso, I think, in Subsection (2) that that paper shall be exempted from duty which is employed in wrapping chocolate, confectionery and various other things. Now the imports of foreign manufactured cocoa, chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery into this country have shown a very considerable increase in recent years. In 1924 the imports of foreign chocolate, cocoa and sugar confectionery into this country amounted to £1,900,000. In 1925 they had risen to considerably over £2,000,000—£2,173,000. Now it is contended, with a large measure of justice, by those on whose behalf I am speaking, that the effect of this proposal will be to give a bounty, not inconsiderable in amount, to these imported goods, which are in direct competition with goods produced in this country. I know I shall be told by my hon. Friend opposite, who made such an admirable speech on the Committee stage in support of this Clause, that the bounty is altogether in- considerable in extent. I have been at some pains to try to ascertain—it is very difficult—precisely to what it amounts. The reply I have received is this. I want to put the House in possession of it, because, to some little extent, it corrects what I said in Committee, and falls in with the correction made, which I want at once to acknowledge, by the hon. Member for East Dorset {Mr. Caine). Types of wrappings and packings vary so much that it is a difficult matter to ascertain exactly what is the exact ratio to complete cost. That was my inquiry. I wanted to know, as far as possible, what was the ratio of wrapping paper to the complete cost of the imported commodity. This is the reply which I received: But from very careful analysis we have made of a number of the most popular selling lines the average ratio is approximately 7½ per cent. My impression is that the Report put, it at a figure very much below that and that a figure very much below that was quoted by the President of the Board of Trade, because he challenged me in Committee to read a portion of the Report which I did not think supported my case, and I very naturally declined to do so. The average ratio, my correspondent says, is approximately 7½ per cent. This figure is confirmed by a similar analysis made by one of our friends. Then he goes on: This figure includes all paper, both dutiable and non-dutiable and it is not possible to say what proportion is liable-to duty. I am very sorry, but although I have made every endeavour to obtain the information which my hon. Friend desires, I cannot make a more precise statement than that. It may be said that this is not a very serious matter, but if it is anything approaching 7½ per cent. it is obvious that it is not a negligible one. So much I have desired to say in regard to the bounty, which as I am contending. will be given to imported confectionery, chocolate, and so on, which are in competition with the corresponding industry in this country, whether to a large extent or to a small extent. Be the bounty large or small it will be given to these-imported commodities which are in competition with our own products.

Then there is the other aspect of the matter. We are not only, as consumers in this country, importers of a large amount of foreign confectionery and chocolate, but I am glad to think and know that our manufacturers of these commodities are also very considerable exporters. I find that in 1925 British exports of manufactured sugar, cocoa and chocolate confectionery amounted to £2,198,000, but whereas the imports of foreign manufactures are slightly on the up grade, as I showed a minute or two ago, the exports of British commodities of the same kind are on the down grade. In 1924 we exported £2,351,000 worth of these commodities, as against £2,198,000 worth last year, therefore it is perfectly obvious to every member of the Committee that we cannot afford to put on the British product any sort of impediment which will make it more difficult for the British product to compete in the neutral markets. I have here, by the courtesy of a correspondent—because I notice a growing disposition towards exhibits in this House—a specimen of paper which is known technically as Bavarian porcelain dipping paper, which I am informed is very largely used in the chocolate trade. As a matter of fact that paper has on it the name of a well-known York firm, and it is used for the purpose—so I am advised—of giving a high gloss to the chocolate and moulding the name of the manufacturer on the bottom of the sweetmeat. I am advised that for the purposes for which it is desired to use this paper it is unrivalled, as far as any British product is concerned. It is used after repeated cleansing for the same purpose, and by no stretch of the imagination can this paper be described as wrapping paper. But at least one port of entry—and I daresay at a good many more, though I have only evidence of one—the Customs have insisted upon duty being paid upon this paper, which is emphatically a portion of the raw material of the commodity which is now under our consideration.

I spoke at some length upon this point on the Committee stage and I do not wish to repeat the argument I then used, but I will conclude with this one observation. I have tried to show that under this proposed Clause those whose interests I am attempting to represent in this House will be damnified in two directions. On the one hand, their foreign competitors in this country will receive. (under the pro- viso of Sub-Clause 2) what is tantamount to a bounty on imported chocolate, etc. On the other hand, they will be damnified in that they will have to pay some additional price, if the duty raises the price for the paper which is an essential part of their cost of production, and, finally, they will be damnified as exporters from this country because their cost of production will be to this extent increased. There is one dominating consideration which I have suggested must be observed if this safeguarding principle is really to become a permanent part of our fiscal policy. I want to make it clear, in conclusion, that to the general principle of safeguarding I am not opposed, but I venture most respectfully yet most emphatically to urge that, whereas we have agreed to the principle as a general principle, yet that principle must be applied with the greatest possible circumspection in particular cases. That is why I, for one, am not at all in love with this particular Clause in the Finance Bill. I will certainly vote for the inclusion of the Clause if the Government will give me any satisfaction in regard to the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Hurst) and other Members. If they will not hold out any satisfaction, then, in the Parliamentary phrase, I shall have to consider my position. What I want to say, as one who has accepted the principle of safeguarding, is that I am personally quite convinced that the only result of applying Protection in such a case as that which I am now bringing to the attention of the House will be to make the whole principle of safeguarding stink in the nostrils of the industrial community of this country.


In the Committee stage we listened to several very important speeches on this subject, and none were delivered with more force and more logic than that of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) opposing the imposition of the duty on wrapping paper, and that of the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) supporting it. The former is a die-hard Protectionist and the other is a die-hard Tory, and that is the same thing. I expect, when the Division is taken, the hon. Member for York will follow the Labour party into the Lobby in opposition to this duty. I am not necessarily one of those ardent Free Traders from whom we hear so many speeches on this subject, but I do submit that, in all cases where we are considering the imposition of a duty on imported goods, we should have serious regard to the effect of that duty on the users of the imported article. I am satisfied, after carefully considering the Report of the Board of Trade Committee, that, while the wrapping paper interests were well to the front, the users of wrapping paper did not get that consideration for the evidence they submitted that they ought to have received. If I understand the case for the duty, it has been submitted that, if this duty be imposed, it will reduce unemployment in the wrapping paper industry. I believe there are something like 7,000 people normally employed in this industry, of whom about 1,000 are unemployed at the moment. It has been said that the average wage paid in the wrapping paper industry does not exceed £2 a week. If we solved the whole of the unemployment problem in that industry, it would amount to no more than £100,000 per annum. What is it to cost the confectionery trade, particularly the chocolate trade?

Like the hon. Member for York, I represent a constituency where a great many people are employed in the chocolate industry. There are about 10,000 people employed in the well-known firm of Cadbury Brothers, of Bournville, 3,000 more people than are employed in the paper trade. Were their interests taken into consideration by the Committee? I say they were not considered to the extent that they ought to have been. It has been said by the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) that there was a good deal of humbug about the complaint of the confectionery trade, and particularly the chocolate branch of it, as to the bad effects of this duty. He said it would amount to one penny per week per person employed in the chocolate industry. We will assume that that obviously low estimate is correct. There are 10,000 people employed by Cadbury Brothers alone. A penny a week, whether it is paid by the workpeople, the consumer, or the manufacturer, would cost, in the case of that firm alone, £1,750 per annum. What for? To solve the unemployment problem in the wrapping paper trade, which would cost only £100,000 per annum. If that is safeguarding, we do not want anything to do with it. We think it is wrong economics, and that those who have examined this matter have been wrong either in their arithmetic or their fiscal policy.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

Did the hon. Member say £175,000?


I find I was wrong about the number of people employed. There are 84,000 people employed in the confectionery industry. That does not destroy the strength of my argument; it is merely a question of putting the figures correct. There is, however, one very important phase which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for York and that is the unfairness of the method of applying this duty. Cadbury Brothers—and I dare say the same is true of the York firm and of all large users of wrapping paper—purchase their paper in bulk, and they are liable to pay a duty of 16⅔ per cent. The effect of that tax will be to pass on an additional cost to the consumer of confectionery of 7½ per cent. The worst feature is in respect to competition abroad. The chocolate manufacturers in Europe and in America wrap their goods up to send them into this country, and unless that paper is in excess of 15 per cent. of the value of the total cost of the material, the goods and the paper come in free, but the chocolate manufacturers in this country have to pay full duty on the paper when it comes to them. Then, with that duty against them, they have to compete with the foreigner, who gets his goods in here free, wrapped in paper. I am one of those who believe that sufficient examination has not been made of the safeguarding question, not only in regard to what happens at home, but in regard to what is done abroad, and I say that it should be examined with an open mind. I have not heard a case made out in this House which would justify us imposing a duty on wrapping paper or showing that it would be fair and equitable and that it will not do more harm than good. I trust that, before we go to a Division, the Minister in charge will make a serious effort to meet the criticism of this duty which has been made, not only from this side of the House, but by Members on his own side.

5.0 P.M.

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

In replying to this Debate, I will try to convince the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment, although I do not suppose I shall be successful. We have heard the same arguments to-day as those which were raised and fully canvassed in the Committee stage. Then every argument that could he advanced was put forward. In substance, the argument put forward by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Clause was this. He said that, neither by reason of the conditions which obtain in the industry, nor by reason of the volume of production, nor by reason of the imports, nor the character of the competition which these imports indicated, are we justified in imposing a. duty. He added that there are other industries which will be adversely affected. The hon. Member will be familiar with the saying of Stevenson, that it might be rather difficult to define precisely where night and day merge or are divided. So we find it rather difficult in defining an industry of substantial importance, but one knows what one is when one sees it, and I submit that this industry, employing all these people and able to employ a great many more, is an industry of substantial importance. It is said that the home production is not sufficient to justify this duty. It is never easy to get, apart from the census of production, completely accurate figures, but there is no doubt that production ha gone down enormously. I have not heard it substantially challenged that production has fallen from 260,000 tons or thereabout before the War to 180,000 tons in 1924. No one will deny that that is a substantial fall in production. While that great fall has taken place in production, imports have increased from 201,000 tons before the War to a rate of importation in the present year—it is naturally leas now that the duty operates from the date that the Resolution is passed and the immediate effect of a flood of imports following the announcement of the duty is not now felt. The dam has been erected and imports since this Resolution was passed show a marked decline. But up to that time the rate of imports was 260,000 tons. There is a fall of production on the one hand and an increase of importation on the other hand. The bulk of that importation is coming from countries where competition is unfair— from Sweden where wages are lower and hours longer—and in every country the House will find that there is a longer continuous working day. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the imports from Germany, where the rate had gone up to 7,000 tons a month. Beyond question, more than two-thirds of the imports are coming from countries where the conditions are unfair as compared with this country. The suggestion was made that unemployment has not increased. The hon. Member who made that suggestion cannot be in touch with the trade unions who have the conduct of this industry. Those who have the conduct of the trade unions concerned here have stated repeatedly that in this section of the industry unemployment is 15 per cent. or more amongst their members, not counting something like 50 per cent. who are on short time. The case is established, I say, on all the grounds on which he said we failed to establish a case. Then the hon. Member said that if you established that case you ought not to impose this duty because you might do damage to existing industries. The hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) has been a most stout defender of the particular industry workers in which number a large part of his constituency. I am sure that if there was any question of protecting that industry he would be as stout a supporter of a duty.

The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) took as an example straw paper, and referred to a communication which has been sent round which challenges substantially the case I made on straw paper last time. I have nothing to withdraw from what I said then, although I might point out that I was misreported in the latter part of my speech. I think it was obvious that where I mentioned straw paper the reporter had misreported it "straw." What was the contention I advanced then? It was this—that you have in this country the machinery and the firms who have made and were making straw paper, and that this straw paper was a perfectly adequate wrapping or packing paper as the raw material for corrugated paper. I contended that we manufuctured that on a considerable scale. This has not really been challenged, and I say further that this straw paper, manufactured in this country, is being sold by these firms who make it to corrugaters and is being used by the firms themselves in the further process of manufacturing corrugated paper. There is a division of opinion, and some people who corrugate like to import foreign papers and use them. Others like to use English paper. If I had to choose between the firm who makes an English article and uses it in its further process, or the firm who, in the further process, uses the foreign article, why should I make an illogical and unjustified distinction in the interest of a firm not manufacturing from the English article?


Can the right hon. Gentle man name one English firm which makes straw paper out of straw?


No, I do not say that it does make it out of straw, but I do say that it makes it out of chips of straw board and that that manufacture in this country is quite adequate for its purpose, and that it is perfectly adequate for corrugated paper. The lion. Member for York produced the confectionery argument again. We have heard it before. This Committee thought about 1 per cent. of the value of confectionery was wrapping paper, whereas he said it is more than that, and that 7 per cent. paper is used. He said quite frankly, "I cannot tell you how much of that is wrapping paper." I received a deputation on this matter representing various confectioners, and a very large part of the paper used in the trade is not wrapping paper at all.


Will the right hon. Gentleman say if his information is more accurate than mine, and can he give us a figure?


No, I cannot. It may be that it is more than I per cent., but I am sure it is a great deal less than 7 per cent. I will give the hon. Member another figure which he will not challenge—that out of the small percentage of paper which is of a dutiable character used in the confectionery trade something like 80 per cent. is paper manufactured in this country. I think that was admitted when I discussed it with the deputation. Even out of the fraction which is wrapping paper, they find it convenient and obviously economical to use 80 per cent. of the English paper. In view of that, I do submit that the Committee were fully justified in their conclusion. Even if the fears were realised, which may be considerably discounted in view of the experience of those industries included under Clause 10, the Committee found that the damage that would be done to employment in the absence of a duty by the increase in numbers thrown out would be far greater than any damage done to these new industries. Of course, in these industries the article which is made entirely or almost entirely of paper is also protected by the duty. Another argument was that if you are to have the duty it should not be put on for five years but for one year. That is a bad proposal. If it would be upsetting to put a duty on, you have that upset if it is for one year. On the other side you want to encourage people—as I gave instances in the Committee stage to show the duty will do if it is put on—to establish fresh plant by giving them security. If this security which you are going to give them is a security of one year instead of five years, how do you suppose for a moment that you will get any advantage? You will get all the disadvantages that can be argued and none of the advantages that you will get by security. For these reasons I ask the Committee to pass the Clause.


I do not want to detain the House for more than a very few moments because I think this matter has been very exhaustively discussed, both in Committee and the further Debate, but there are just one or two observations I should like to make. The President of the Board of Trade has quite naturally repeated much of the argument which he advanced on various proposals during the Committee stage. He stated in his concluding observations that he had dealt with all the points which had been raised this afternoon. But there was one very important point which occupied the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mac-kinder) to which he has made no reply whatever. May I recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Shipley complained very strongly about the inadequacy of the information which had been supplied to this House. We have practically nothing upon which we can base a judgment except this comparatively meagre and certainly not very impartial Report of the Committee. My hon. Friend de- mantled, and I think he is justified in that demand, that the House of Commons should have the evidence given before these Safeguarding Committees. We do not ask—and I am quite sure this will appeal to right hon. Gentlemen—in these days of the need for national economy that the Government should be put to the expense of printing the evidence and publishing a large number of volumes. There must be typewritten copies of all the evidence given before these Committees in the possession of somebody, and we have a right to demand that there should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons, copies of this evidence so that Members who are keenly interested in the question may have an opportunity of reading that evidence and of having the material on which to come to an intelligent conclusion on the matter.

We have had this afternoon a striking illustration of the truth of the oftrepeated statement, that every man is a Protectionist for his own trade and a Free Trader for every other trade. We have had the spectacle of a die-hard Protectionist opposing these duties because it is believed they are going to affect the interests of—I was going to say, a Liberal — a commercial firm in his own constituency. May I say, speaking from a rather long electoral experience, that if any Member of Parliament raises a question here, in the hope that he is going to get support thereby, from political opponents in his constituency, he is generally disappointed. But this is very interesting, because it, shows that when you propose or make a practical experiment you divide Protectionists. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison), with whose arithmetic I fear I could hardly agree in its revised form, began by saying that he was no hide-bound Free Trader. I am a Free Trader, but I am not hide-bound to the extent that I would refuse to give dispassionate consideration to any particular proposal which was made, though it is very likely that it would take a very strong case indeed to remove what I suppose some hon. Members would call the prejudices—I shall call them the principles—which I hold very strongly. But, as I said just now, when you make or propose a practical experiment, general principles recede into the back- ground, and individuals consider the question as it is likely to affect their own trade or personal interest.

The hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine), who made a remarkably interesting and well-informed speech during the Committee stage of this Bill, advanced this argument, that even if this duty did increase any prices it would be an infinitesimal increase. But that point of the smallness of the effect of these duties has been used on every proposal that has been made for the safeguarding duty. What we must remember is, that it may not be very large where the particular duty is concerned, but the cumulative effect may be very high. In the last few years we had duties on motor cars. No doubt, every Member of the House has seen the prospectus of a motor company which occupied pages of the newspapers a few days ago,. and I hope Protectionists have examined those figures carefully. I am not digressing, I hope, in touching on this matter because I shall link it to the general argument in a moment and it has a general application. It will be remembered that when I proposed to repeal the McKenna Duties, the most highly organised opposition came from the Morris motor car people, and, as a matter of fact, they sent out cards to the workpeople saying that if the duties were removed their contracts of service would expire. The duties were afterwards re-imposed and the figures of the prospectus show that they had the largest increases of output during the 12 months when the duties were off. The profits were largest that year and there was the largest volume of employment that year.

The President of the Board of Trade has referred to unemployment in the paper trade and has said that as a result of imports, the amount of employment in the whole trade had declined and he seemed to think that that was a conclusive answer to the arguments advanced in opposition to the proposal. We always get that from the. Tariff Reformer. The Tariff Reformer is a one-eyed individual and he can only see what is right in front of that eye. The, Tariff Reformer is quite incapable of taking an all-round view of industry. No Free Trader has ever denied that you may give an artificial advantage to a particular industry by protecting it, but the Free Trade argument as opposed to the Protectionist argument, is you must not take into account only the effect of that particular isolated duty, but that you must look at the effect upon industry as a whole. Therefore, it is no conclusive argument to point out that there has been an increase in unemployment which might have been due to any one of a hundred causes; you have to take into consideration the general effect upon all industries and, particularly, upon those which are dependent on these articles as the staple commodity or material of their industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the imports came largely from countries where the conditions were unfair. He used the word "unfair" and he especially cited the case of Sweden. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have either forgotten the Report of his Committee, or he was assuming that, other Members of the House had forgotten it. May I refer him to page 21 of the Committee's Report, paragraph 59, which says: in the case of Sweden the available statistics suggest that real (hourly) wages in the paper industry are from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. below those of the United Kingdom "— The right hon. Gentleman's case would be established if I stopped there, but even this Committee did not stop there. The Report proceeds: but the factors of uncertainty mentioned above are specially operative in this case where the wage is based on an elaborate classification, both by categories of workers and by geographical groups. Piece-work, again, on rates calculated to yield 20 per cent. more than the hourly rates, is obligatory under the wage agreement whenever such an arrangement is possible. Moreover, it would appear that British and Swedish real wages have increased to a practically identical extent since the War, so that whatever disparity exists is apparently a continuation only of a disparity already present before the War, and then the Committee answer the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the competition of Sweden is unfair— We should hesitate to describe Swedish wage conditions, so far as we can ascertain them, as 'unfair'. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Sweden is answered out of the Report of the Committee itself. I will not say more, except this. The House of Commons is discussing a duty on wrapping paper. It is supported by the right hon. Gentleman, who is admittedly an all-round Protectionist. I am old enough to remember Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's great campaign—"crusade" might more accurately describe it—for Imperial Preference and a duty on manufactured articles. There was something idealistic in Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's campaign. He understood the question. If Mr. Joseph Chamberlain could come back to this House and listen to this Debate, I wonder what he would think when he found the House of Commons engaged, not in applying the principles which he advocated, to some Imperialist proposal, not in putting a tax upon manufactured articles at all, but on this proposal? The Protectionism of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has come don n to a duty on wrapping paper.


It may well be asked, after listening to some of the examples given by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) of the application of this duty, and after the observations of the President of the Board of Trade, whether we are not really engaged to-day in discussing a general duty on paper, rather than a duty on wrapping paper. I wish to bring forward one more example of the obvious attempt which is being made to embrace, within this safeguarding proposal, categories of paper other than wrapping paper. We heard the President of the Board of Trade's reference to the Committee's observations upon straw paper. I can find in the Report of the Committee no reference to straw paper, nor do I believe that any reference was made to that paper in the evidence before the Committee. If straw paper is to be considered as wrapping paper, I can only say that it is as unsuitable material as you could possibly imagine for wrapping purposes. It is lacking in fibre, it is not supple, it breaks and it has very little resisting or protecting power.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

There is an Amendment in the hon. Baronet's name which raises this as a separate issue.


I understood we were allowed to speak on the general question, and I was addressing my observations in that way.


I hope the observations will not be repeated on the other Amendment.


It was my intention to move the Amendment formally. The sole justification for including straw paper in this duty was because the President of the Board of Trade stated that it was assumed throughout to be included under the term "wrapping paper." Further, he added that it was perfectly open for anyone to give evidence. If that assumption be correct, it remained a well-kept secret, because neither was any evidence given before the Committee, nor any Amendments made by way of assumption that straw paper would be included, nor was the slightest reference made in the Committee's Report to straw paper. In fact, far from the Committee's Report bearing out the President's assumption, the evidence is to the contrary.

The Committee proceeded according to the rules which were laid down in the White Paper, quite properly, and in the first place it set out six principal descriptions of wrapping paper. These categories differ very widely one from the other, both in their characteristics and their qualities and manufacture, ranging in out-turn from 37 per cent. down to as low as 2 per cent. Two per cent. represents about £4,000 annually. Previously we had the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in Committee that straw paper was produced in this country to no less an extent than 15,000 tons annually. I submit that if the assumption be correct that straw paper should be included in the category of wrapping paper, the Committee would at least have included it under the six heads which are set out in the Report, particularly as the quantity produced in 1923 is in itself nearly four times that, of one of the principal descriptions of wrapping paper. The Report goes on to give some of the characteristics of these wrapping papers The Committee speaks of kraft, which is only 4 per cent. as against 8 per cent. of that which is termed straw paper, and mention again is made of other kinds and their uses. But in all this there is not the slightest reference to straw paper which, if it had been included, would have certainly ranked amongst the headings to which I have referred.

Finally, in Clause 21, page 9 of the Report, there is given a new and improved classification of wrapping paper imports in force on 1st January, 1925, long before the appointment of the Committee. Again, no mention is made of straw paper. Really, this question of what is defined as wrapping paper and what is not is an extremely technical one and it is not fair that it should be debated upon the Floor of the House of Commons. It is for that very reason that the Committee did its work and issued its report. When the White Paper was debated in February, 1925, we were informed that the House was to have the right to make a pronouncement upon specific cases which had been reported upon by the Committee. I have taken the trouble to refer to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion and he, in his endeavour to reassure the House as to the safeguards which the rules under the Inquiry would provide, stated something of this kind: After a case has been reported on by a Committee, the House is then to be asked to decide upon specific proposals. Surely that is what any reasonable man wants? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: Let the Committee report on the particular facts of the particular case, and then I can see whether the industry is of substantial importance. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1925; col. 813, Vol. 180] The case of straw paper has not been reported upon at all. It has not even been submitted. The only thing that has been done is to include it under wrapping paper. Nearly every expert consulted by the President had assured him that straw paper was wrapping paper, but I, in common with many hon. Members have received evidence of experts who are opposed to the President of the Board of Trade. He is taking up an attitude which is not right and proper. Altogether the issue is so confused, and confusion is being made worse confounded by the statements of the President, that I think we are justified in asking him to make a generous gesture, to take out of his proposals straw paper, and to bring it before a Committee so that an application can be considered in a proper and regular manner. The House can then have the advice and the advantage of the guidance of the Committee, which has had the opportunity of hearing the evidence of experts duly weighed and valued, before recommendations are made.


A disinterested observer listening to these Debates would not think that we were discussing the Finance Bill, the Bill for raising the necessary revenue for the year. What such a one would gather from the Debate would be that we were discussing ways to encourage various industries and trades and to foster vested interests. As a matter of fact, it is part of the Finance Bill that is now going through the House, and it is our annual Debate on finance, and the finding of ways of raising the revenue for the payment of charges. We are putting the case for and against a particular duty so far as a particular district is affected.

We have heard a very interesting statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird) and it would appear that in his case it is the last straw that has broken the camel's back. Apparently some hon. Members are prepared to vote for a protectionist scheme where their own particular interest or particular constituency is not affected. They are prepared to vote for duties on cutlery, drugs, hosiery, and all sorts of articles. Hon. Members who have now left the House, including the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) have spoken quite frankly. He told us that he was quite in favour of the principle of safeguarding—safeguarding anything and everything so long as we do not safeguard the very thing that may affect the industry of his great city. That is inevitable from this new policy of safeguarding industries. That is why we on these benches oppose it. We quite realise—it does not require much imagination to do that—the case for protecting any particular industry isolated from all the others. Once, however, you start on this downward course, and try to select various industries for protection you must undermine the whole industry of the country. While you may help one trade, on the balance the country suffers. The hon. Member for York made out an unanswerable case. The President of the Board of Trade did not really seriously attempt to refute his arguments. His only defence was that this was only a little one. Surely it is one that affects the cost of production? The more matters go in this direction the more satisfactorily the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides will be satisfied. He should cease to call himself the President of the Board of Trade. He should be termed His Majesty's Minister of Customs.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

This is rather wide of the question of wrapping paper.


I quite appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I was wandering a little afield, but this proposal covers so many things in general use that it would be very difficult to deal with wrapping paper except by covering a very much wider area. There is no one that can make a case in Debate for putting on this tax. What this proposal points to is how unwise it is to impose a tax of this kind. It is our pride, it is our satisfaction that we are great exporters, that our existence depends upon it. Everything that goes out or comes in to this country has wrapping paper on or around it in some form or other. It has been pointed out by hon. Members how this is going to add to the cost of production. The hon. Member for York pointed out how it was going to add to the cost of the production of chocolates. At first sight paper does not seem to have much relation to chocolates, but they have to be wrapped in boxes in a particular form to make the box and contents attractive, so that if you are going to put a tax on wrapping paper you are going to increase the cost of the production of chocolates and make it more difficult for this great industry to compete with industries in other parts of the world. Consider the effect of this upon chocolate, upon the trade, and even more upon those unorganised trades, or not organised enough, to impress the Committee that has been considering the point.

A case has to be made before the Committee, but the case has to be a special and exceptional one before it can claim to be heard. Ordinary trades which find themselves dependent for their existence on their foreign trade cannot make a case for special treatment. None the less they are going to be handicapped. Then there are large trades that have some rather remote association with the textile trade, and with wrapping paper. Anybody who knows anything about the Bradford dress goods trade knows that every piece of dress stuff exported has to be wrapped in paper, all of which, I venture to suggest, has to be imported from abroad. Bradford claims to be helped in this matter of safeguarding. They have endeavoured to show that they were suffering from severe competition from abroad, but they failed to make out their case and protection or safeguarding was refused them—I think rightly. Having failed to make their case, one of the articles essential to their trade is now to be taxed, and every piece of Bradford dress goods exported abroad in competition with other countries is to have its bit of paper taxed. I am not surprised that Lancashire Members, too, are up in arms and protesting, because the exporters of cotton piece goods have to use wrapping paper.

As people get more civilised, the get-up of an article is essential for its sale, and the smart appearance of many articles depends on the proper use of paper. Moreover, all the goods which go abroad have to be put into cases, and paper is used with those cases. It is not now essential to use zinc, because with improved methods of packing, and better ships, paper is substituted for zinc. That paper is to be taxed. All the great packing houses in Manchester and London, houses famous throughout the world, find now that the President of the Board of Trade—the Minister of Customs as I say—is going to put a tax on their raw material. That is not the way to carry out the duties of President of the Board of Trade. Let him leave finance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows better; he is out for taxes that bring in revenue and not for Protective taxes, and the President is not going to help him to obtain revenue by making our export trade more difficult through an increase in the cost of production. If we injure the export trade, we injure the Income Tax Revenue, which is still the main source of income to the Treasury. This duty it a bad one; even from the point of view of the Protectionists it is a bad one, because it taxes raw material. Even Mr. Joseph Chant berlain never suggested that raw mate rials should be taxed. Anything which came within the definition of raw material was to be exempted, even though certain foods were to be taxed; but now, at a time of great trade depression, the President of the Board of Trade is proposing to tax an article which is essentially a raw material, thus crippling industry, decreasing employment and making it more difficult for our manufacturers to compete in the markets of the world.


After the very long speech on this Bill which I made on another occasion, I rather hesitate to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but as I have been somewhat criticised, both outside and, to some extent, inside the House, for statements I have made on the question of wrapping paper, I trust the House will allow me to defend those statements and to justify them if I can. I would like to make two comments arising out of the present Debate. I hope the arguments of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Dennison) are better than his arithmetic, because I make the figare £72,500 and not £175,000. It only shows what exaggerated statements are made about Wrapping-paper Duty. People talk about 400,000 people being affected. Of course, 400,000 people are affected, 40,000,000 are in some way affected; but what we have to deal with is the fact that there are 7,000 people whose absolute livelihood is affected by this duty, and it is for those 7,000, and for 3,000 or 4,000 others who could be put into employment that I have appealed to this House.

I have already explained that being myself interested in the trade I take no part in the divisions, but I trust the House will allow me to explain this matter in some detail. It has been said that the experts disagree. I have never claimed to be an expert, but I understand that six gentlemen who, I think, may fairly claim to be experts, have circularised every Member of the House on a particular phase of this duty which has been referred to by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird). I thank him for the very moderate way in which he put the case. As I said, I am not an expert, chiefly for the reason that in my trade experts are known as gentlemen who have never successfully manufactured any paper themselves but are very useful in giving advice to others as to how it should be done, and I happen to be a paper manufacturer. It is because I am anxious that neither the Board of Trade nor the House should be asked to grant safeguarding to the straw paper industry unless absolutely satisfied about it that I propose to deal with this particular question alone.

What is the gravamen of the complaint about straw paper? The corrugated paper trade have four complaints. First they say that the wrapping paper makers did not ask for the safeguarding of straw paper, that they could not do so because straw paper is not a wrapping paper. The second is that the corrugated paper makers were given no opportunity of placing their case against the duty before the Committee, and that they were not represented. The third point is that no straw paper is made in this country, but only what they call a bad imitation. The fourth is that British straw paper is really so bad in quality as to be practically useless, and that really nobody wants it.

With regard to the statement that the wrapping paper makers did not ask for the safeguarding of straw paper, their case was covered by Clause 14 of the Report. On page 6 will be found the statement: a duty of 331 per cent. ad valorem be imposed on all paper of above 10 lbs. substance classified by the Customs Department as Packing and Wrapping papers or Tissue, with the exception of 'glazed transparent'. I think that is the claim of the wrap ping paper makers. If I can show that this straw paper has been and is always classified by the Customs as wrapping paper, I think that ought to knock on the head once for all the fact that straw paper was not included in the application. I have here a letter from the Board of Customs in reply to an inquiry as to the category in which straw paper comes. They say: With reference to your letter I have to inform you that straw paper is recorded for purposes of the official trade statistics under the heading 'Paper, packing or wrapping, (1) glazed, (2) unglazed'. That is signed by the Deputy-Controller of Customs. I think it effectually dispoes of that point. Then they say the corrugated paper makers were not given an opportunity of placing their case against the duty before the Committee and that they were not represented. I am reliably informed that, so far from having no knowledge of this matter, they had a very complete knowledge. The Association of Corrugated Paper Makers held a meeting during the early proceedings of the Safeguarding Committee, and decided to take no action in the matter; certainly they decided not to oppose the application. They decided one point further, that as the Federation of British Paper Box Makers were also corrugated paper makers they would leave their case, for what it was worth, in their hands. They did so.

We find, if we refer to the Committee's Report, that Mr. Culross, who is a prominent box-maker, and also a solicitor, appeared before the Committee right the way through the proceedings. He heard everything and had only got to ask if he was uncertain about anything. Mr. Culross, in common with every well-informed box-maker, knew perfectly well that straw paper is referred to as wrapping paper. It was not for the applicants to go out into the highways and byways and search for people to come forward to oppose the application. It cannot be contended that an applicant for a safeguarding duty has not only to prove his case, but also to bring forward people to oppose it; and when a representative of the British paper box-makers was present to watch the proceedings on their behalf, it proves beyond all question that the corrugated paper makers knew perfectly well that their interests would be affected if this duty were imposed.

I have here a minute of a meeting of the Corrugated Paper Makers which, I think, will interest and may amuse the House: After a thorough discussion of the subject it was agreed that as corrugated straw paper came within that section of the trade covered by the British Paper Box Makers' Federation, the Association would leave the matter of the application of the duty to straw paper for their consideration, but would press for a duty on imported corrugated rolls, corrugated boxes, and corrugated hoard. They found they were going to put a duty on imported corrugated rolls, corrugated boxes and corrugated boards, and so they thought, "Well, it does not matter much to us if they do put a duty on corrugated paper."

6.0 P.M.

Finally, there is the point as to whether corrugated paper is made in this country or whether it is only an imitation. If such paper is not made in this country and is only what these gentlemen are pleased to call an imitation, then there is no paper made in this country—no wood paper in this country at all. All printing papers made in this country, with the exception of esparto or rag paper, are made of wood pulp, which is brought over from Scandinavia or Canada or some other country. These gentlemen suggest that because we do not make our paper here wholly of straw, or even partly of straw, in the raw state, that, therefore, our paper is an imitation. That is the suggestion made. It is wood pulp treated by a sulphurous process and passed over the machine so as to make paper. Straw proper, in one case, is undoubtedly made by chipping straw and boiling it with lime, and passing it over the machine. The result is you get a strawboard like this, which is similar to a pulp board like that from which white paper is made. It is absolute nonsense for those gentlemen to contend that the paper which is made out of this white sheet and which is used for the "Times," the "Morning Post," the "Daily Telegraph," and the "Daily Herald" is imitation, and that straw paper made out of that is imitation. Both are made under exactly the same kind of process. So far as we are concerned, British papermakers contend that the straw paper made here is not only not inferior but is better, in many respects, than the foreign article. The President of the Board of Trade told us that some 15,000 tons of strawpaper were made in one year in this country, admittedly at a higher cost than the paper which comes in from Holland. Admittedly, British strawpaper costs the corrugated paper manufacturer £1 per ton more, but if British paper makers were producing their full output the difference would not be so great,. and I hope the House will find that that is the result within a very short time.

A number of British makers of corrugated paper are quite anxious to pay £1 a ton more for the British article, and they are in competition with those five or six firms who are now contending that a special exception should be made in relation to strawpaper imported from Holland. There are only one or two points in their case. One is that the British-made article which we contend is better than the foreign article is a little dearer, and the other point is that when you make your strawpaper from the chippings of the strawboard the colour of that strawpaper is a little dark. I admit it is a little darker than the foreign make, but after all hon. Members will realise that a straw corrugated paper is not used for decorating purposes, and it does not matter very much if the tone is a little brighter or darker in one make than in the other. It is rather a matter of taste. Personally, I would prefer the dark shade, but there may be hon. Members who prefer the light shade. It is rather like one's taste in ladies, some prefer blondes and others brunettes. The mills in this country are successfully producing strawpaper, the only difference being a slightly higher price and a little darker colour. In what I have said I have not tried to over-estimate the case, but I have endeavoured to put the facts fairly. I trust that hon. Members will be satisfied that a case has been made out by the Minister, and I hope they will support him in opposing this Amendment.


I had not intended taking any part in the discussion on this question until the straw-paper Amendment was reached, but when we come to that Amendment we shall probably take a silent vote, and therefore I rise now to put the case for the other side. The users of strawpaper, whom the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) appears to scoff at because they are not manufacturers, certainly are the people who use the material, and they are as much entitled to be heard as the manufacturers, and for that reason they may be experts, although they are not manufacturers. Their case is that they did not understand that this article was to be included in the question of wrapping paper. What is the reason why they take that view I suggest it is one which must commend itself to the serious attention of this House.

They had very definite reasons for thinking that it was excluded. In the first place they definitely rang up the Board of Trade and inquired whether this was included or not, and they were informed that it was not. One would think that that alone was sufficient ground for these people to conclude that it was excluded. The hon. Member for East Dorset says that he has evidence that it is included in the Customs among wrapping papers, and ho says that he has made inquiries and finds that strawpaper is included in wrapping paper. I suggest that that is not really the criterion. The question is not whether it is included to-day but whether it was included in the term "wrapping paper" at the time the inquiry was being held. The information which reaches me is that perfectly definitely it was not so included at the time immediately preceding and I believe at the time the inquiry was being held. Proof is contained in this fact that a large part of straw paper comes from Holland, and in the last three months of the year 1925 something like 3,500 tons of Dutch strawpaper were imported. When we turn to the Customs we find in those three months only 610 tons of paper classified as wrapping paper unglazed, whereas 42,000 tons of strawboard were contained in the Customs return. I would ask the hon. Member for East Dorset how it is possible in 610 tons to include 3,500 tons of strawpaper. It is clear that in those months these 3,500 tons of strawpaper were not included in paper, but in strawboards. If these are the correct facts for the period immediately preceding the inquiry, and the strawpaper was not included in the Customs account of wrapping paper, and in view of the fact that on inquiry at the Board of Trade these people were told specifically that this was not to be included in the term "wrapping paper," then I say that the case of the users of strawpaper that they ought not to be included in this duty is quite unanswerable. I suggest that unless those facts can be seriously controverted then to include this article in that term is not only very unfair to the users of strawpaper, but it is an abuse of the whole method of discussion by a Committee upon which this duty professes to be based.

That is the main case, but it is not the only case. The case of the users of this strawpaper is that this particular article is not manufactured in this country. It is quite true that 'corrugated paper is manufactured in this country, and that is what was stated by the President of the Board of Trade. The question is whether the corrugated paper made here is strawpaper or whether it is not. The hon. Member for East Dorset says it is, but those who heard his speech will regard it as inconclusive. Surely the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Of course it is open to the hon. Member for Dorset to tell us, who are not experts, that the paper he makes is as good as somebody else makes abroad, but that does not answer the position at all. The question is whether the people who use this strawpaper are content with the paper that the hon. Member for East Dorset makes, or whether they want the paper they have always had hitherto and which they find their customers like.

If they say that, however good the paper may be that the hon. Member for East Dorset makes, they do not like it, and their customers will not have it, we have got to take that answer. They say that they can only use what they consider the real strawpaper. If you pay a duty on the foreign paper they will still continue to buy it at a higher price, and no suggestion that corrugated paper made in this country may be just as good really does meet their attitude in the matter. What we are confronted with is an attempt by the Board of Trade to insert, subsequent to the decision of the Committee, a different article which was not intended at the time to be included. They have included a different article, namely, strawpaper, and thereby they have imposed very great hardships upon many of the users of strawpaper. It is a great hardship if they have to pay the whole of this extra duty, and it is going to be an added hardship if they are put at a disadvantage in consequence compared with foreign users of this material. I hope the President of the Board of Trade, even at the last moment, will consent, if not to the withdrawal of the whole of the duty, at least seriously to consider whether the inclusion of straw-paper has not been a mistake, and when the Amendment dealing with this question is formally moved, I hope he will consent to accept it.


Perhaps the House will now be prepared to dispose of this Amendment, in order that we may have time to consider the other Amendments on the Paper.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 14, page 9, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 125.

Division No. 372.] AYES. 6.15 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Foster, Sir Harry S. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ainsworth, Major Charles Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Murchison, C. K.
Albery, Irving James Fraser, Captain Ian Neville, R. J.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Frece, Sir Walter de Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptesf'ld.)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Galbraith, J. F. W. Nuttall, Ellis
Apsley, Lord Ganzonl, Sir John O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Gates, Percy Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Atholl, Duchees of Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Pennefather, Sir John
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Balniel, Lord Glyn, Major R. G. C. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Barclay Harvey, C. M. Goff, Sir Park Perring, Sir William George
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Gower, Sir Robert Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Greene, W. P. Crawford Palo, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Pitcher, G.
Betterton, Henry B. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Pilditch, Sir Philip
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Gunston, Captain D. W. Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Sir Assheton
Bird Sir R B. (Wolverhampton. W Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Preston, William
Blundell, F. N. Hanbury, C. Price, Major C. W. M.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Raine, W.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Harland, A. Ramsden, E.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Harrison, G. J. C. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Briscoe, Richard George Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Haslam, Henry C. Rentoul, G. S.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hawke, John Anthony Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newby) Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxt'd, Henley) Rice, Sir Frederick
Rockingham, Sir H. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Ropner, Major L.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Bullock. Captain M. Hilton, Cecil Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D,(St. Marylebone) Salmon, Major I.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hopkins, J. W. W. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.) Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Sandon, Lord
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland ,Whiteh'n) Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hume, Sir G. H. Skelton, A. N.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Huntingfield, Lord Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hurd. Percy A. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kine'dlne, C.)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hurst, Gerald B. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Christie, J. A. Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midlin & P'bl's) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.)
Clarry, Reginald George Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Clayton, G. C. Jacob, A. E. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Cobb, Sir Cyril James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jephcott, A. R. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel King, Captain Henry Douglas Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Knox, Sir Alfred Styles. Captain H. Waiter
Cooper, A. Duff Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cope, Major William Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Templeton, W. P.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Loder, J. de V. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Looker, Herbert William Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Crooke. J Smedley (Deritend) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Tinne, J. A.
Crookshank, Col.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. MacIntyre, Ian Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Davies, Dr. Vernon McLean, Major A. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Macmillan, Captain H. Waddington, R.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Wallace, Captain D. E.
Drewe, C. Macquisten. F. A. Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Eden, Captain Anthony MacRobert, Alexander M. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Elliot, Major Waiter E. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Ellis, R. G. Margesson, Captain D. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watts, Dr. T.
Everard. W. Lindsay Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. Wells, S. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Meyer, Sir Frank White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Fermoy, Lord Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fielden, E. B. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Finburgh, S. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ford, Sir P. J. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl
Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wise, Sir Fredric
Womersley, W. J. Wragg, Herbet TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. Major Hennessy and Captain
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) Bowyer.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Groves, T. Paling, W.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillisbro') Grundy, T. W. Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Ammon, Charles George Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Ponsonby, Arthur
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Blleton) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Potts, John S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hardle, George D. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Barnes, A. Harney, A. Richardson, R. (Houghtorn-le Spring)
Barr, J. Harris, Percy A. Riley, Ben
Batey, Joseph Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Saklatvala, Shapurji
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Henn, Sir Sydney H. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, G. H. Scrymgeour, E.
Briant, Frank Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sexton, James
Broad. F. A. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield). Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shleis, Dr. Drummond
Brown, lames (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Cape, Thomas Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Charleton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Snell, Harry
Close, W. S. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kennedy, T. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Stamford, T. W.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Sullivan, J.
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Sutton, J. E.
Crawford, H. E. Lindley, F. W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dalton, Hush Livingstone, A. M. Thurtle, E.
Davies, David (Montgomery) Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lunn, William Townend. A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry Macklnder, W. Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. MacLaren, Andrew Wallhead, Richard C.
Duncan, C. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H. March, S. Welsh, J. C.
Forrest, W. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Gardner, J. P. Morris, R. H. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gosling, Harry Naylor, T. E.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenall, T. Oliver, George Harold Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Grenfell. D. R. (Glamorgan) Palin, John Henry Hayes.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words Provided that there shall be allowed and paid in the case of any manufactured or made-up article exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and consisting wholly or partly of paper subject to the duty imposed by this Section, a drawback equal to the amounts shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been paid as duty on the paper used in the manufacture of the article. As the House knows, this duty will affect a considerable number of industries which use paper as their raw material for manufactured articles, and the Report of the Commission contains, in Appendix III, a list of some 23 industries which are found to have been affected in that way. The object of this Amendment is to secure some degree of protection to industries using imported paper for the purpose of manufacturing articles for export, and I conceive that, if it were found in fact to give such protection it would be the wish of the House that the protection should be given. During the course of the Debate earlier in the evening, I was disturbed, as I have been on previous occasions, to find that the President of the Board of Trade did not regard as a matter of great significance the injury that might be done to export businesses in this country which use paper as raw material. Indeed, on the previous occasion, in Committee, he went so far as to say, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the safeguarding of this industry—that is to say, the wrapping paper industry—would not hurt other industries. It is because I am perturbed by that observation, which was contrary, I think, to the finding of the Report, that I venture to remind the House of two or three short passages in the Report itself showing the serious effect upon some industries in this country—small, it may be, but in the aggregate considerable—of this duty. The Committee said, in paragraph 40 of their Report, with regard to one important branch of the trade affected—namely, the envelope trade, that the exports in that trade were rapidly growing—a healthy and somewhat unusual condition; and they said of it that "a duty would materially prejudice the export trade."

I do not want to go through the catalogue of the industries dealt with in the Report, but, with regard to other minor industries, the Committee, in paragraph 41 of the Report, say that the export business would be gravely prejudiced by such a duty; and they add, in paragraph 64, that the duty would necessarily imply a wide area of disturbance, that it would operate somewhat harshly on these export businesses, and that the effects of the duty could not be localised. Some 23 industries are affected by this duty, and, while gaining nothing from it, will, undoubtedly, according to their evidence, be damnified to a greater or less extent. It is observable that, of these 23 industries, eight only employ, directly by the use of imported paper, more than the whole of the wrapping paper industry. It is not necessary, at this stage of the Debate, to elaborate these considerations, but a fair and judicial consideration of the Committee's Report leads to the conclusion that the President of the Board of Trade, in my submission, was taking far too optimistic a view when he said that the other industries affected would not be injured. For these reasons I commend the object, at any rate, of this Amendment, which is to ensure that a person who manufactures goods out of an imported raw material which is to be taxed shall have the opportunity of proving to the satisfaction of the Committee, when he exports the article, that he has used for the purposes of its manufacture a certain proportion of imported raw material upon which duty has been paid.

I am aware that this matter was raised in Committee, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said the difficulties were so numerous and so severe that he could not hold out any hope of relief. I have read again—I have read more than once—his observations on that occasion, and, if he will permit me to say so, I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions at which he arrived. I have no personal experience of the working of the Customs in these matters, but I start with this proposition, that, if there be a difficulty in giving relief to these industries, which are affected for no good purpose, that difficulty exists to be overcome, and the Customs ought to devise a method of overcoming it. I should like to give an illustration—it may be an unusual illustration, or it may be not very unusual. There is in my constituency an industry to which I referred in the Debate in Committee, which imports Swedish paper for the purposes of making yarns, twines and other articles of that sort—it makes nothing else. That paper is brought direct to Preston Docks, it is unloaded from ships in the docks, taken to the warehouse and turned into the manufactured article, which is sold and exported and dealt with in the ordinary course of trade. What difficulty, I ask, could really be incurred in arranging that a firm so situated should have a rebate on its imported raw material, which goes through no other hands, is easily traceable, and constitutes the entire raw material of the industry?

There may be other instances. I will take the instance of the English Cellulose Company, who make large quantities of similar goods in Manchester. They make them out of imported Swedish material only, because they say they cannot get it in this country. That material, under this duty, is to be taxed. I have little doubt—though I admit this is only a speculation—that that material comes straight clown the Manchester Ship Canal and is unloaded at the Ship Canal docks and transferred to the factory, which is an economic and reasonable way of handling it. Is there any difficulty which cannot be overcome in saying to these people, "Prove the quantity of imported raw material and we will give you a rebate in proportion to the amount of duty paid." If there is such a difficulty I have yet to hear it. All the Amendment asks for is that the individual adversely affected, whose export trade, according to the Report, is going to be gravely prejudiced, shall have an opportunity of going before the Commissioners and proving his claim. If he cannot prove it it falls to the ground. If he can prove it to the satisfaction of reasonable men why should he not have the opportunity? That is the object of the Amendment.


I beg to Second the Amendment.

The only reason I do not speak on it now is that I shall have a few words to say on the next Amendment, which stands in my name.


I think the chief force of the argument used by my hon. Friend in moving the Amendment really ought to have been directed to the last Amendment, because it appeared to me to be very much more relevant to the question whether there should be a duty at all, which has already been decided by the House, rather than to the particular point he has raised with reference to a drawback. He said he read what I said in Committee more than once, and that I entirely failed to convince him of the impossibility of accepting this Amendment. I am afraid in that case I have very little hope of being able to convince him now, because I do not think I can really add anything to what I said in Committee. The real fact of the matter is that the particular sort of drawback my hon. Friend wishes to provide here is entirely inapplicable to the sort of duty that has to be applied. I emphasised and must emphasise again, the fact that the drawback provided in the Bill is the form of drawback which is always applicable to key industry duties and the McKenna Duties. This is not like the duty upon silk or any other ordinary dutiable article, apart from the Safeguarding of Industries, where you have an article on which there is an Excise Duty countervailing the Customs Duty on the imported article. It would be impossible to give such a drawback as my hon. Friend proposes here, because there you can be certain that there is no undutiable raw material which might be used. Consequently if the exporter says, "Here I have an article which contains so many pounds or tons of a particular article which has paid duty," it is quite simple for the Customs authority to examine it and say, "Yes, here is so much material which must have paid duty because it must either have paid Customs Duty or Excise Duty." That seems to be true, of course, of an article on which there is no Excise because there is no supply in this country—for instance—cocoa. But when you come to an article a very large proportion of which is supplied by a manufacturer in this country and is subject to no Excise Duty, it becomes, I will not say a matter of absolute impossibility, but of very great difficulty and complication When the exporter demands a drawback on the manufactured article, to say, "Here is so much duty-paid material employed." There is no certainty of saying that.

My hon. Friend adduced one or two cases in which he suggested there would be no difficulty in showing the amount of duty-paid material. I do not say there are no cases in which that could be shown, but the point we have to consider is whether there are not a good number of other cases where the allegation might be made or where it would be extremely difficult to prove an affirmative or a negative. It might very well be that the Customs authorities would have no definite assignable reason for rejecting the statement made by the person making the claim. On the other hand, it stands to reason that when a large supply of undutiable material might have been employed it would be almost impossible for them to prove a negative, however much persuaded they might be that it was at any rate a very suspicious case. With regard to the McKenna Duties, we are dealing with articles which may be to a certain extent followed and identified. I admit that there is a great deal of difficulty in actually identifying such a matter as a motor car, but still it can be done, but it is impossible to follow imported paper, and to say, "This is the article that paid duty when it came into the country."

My hon. Friend candidly said he knew nothing about the machinery of the Customs Department. I cannot claim, personally, that I do either, but, of course, I have the advice of the best and most experienced experts in the management of that great Department, and I am advised that if this sort of drawback were allowed on industries of this sort, it would be extremely difficult and most complicated, it would impose a good deal of inconvenience and difficult work upon the Department in carrying it out, and beyond that, it would be so inconsistent with the whole code of the McKenna, Duties, which are subject to this sort of drawback which appears in this Bill, that if we were once to accept a proposition such as that put forward by my hon. Friend, it is clear that if a demand were made, as it probably would be, we should have to do exactly the same with regard to the other McKenna Duties, which would involve a rearrangement of the whole system on which those articles are subjected to the duty. Under the circumstances I am afraid I have not added anything to what I said before, and I am not likely to have convinced my hon. Friend, but I hope the House will realise that the matter has been most carefully considered from this point of view, and it is only because we feel, on the advice given us, that it would be creating something almost like chaos in the administration of the duties if we were to accept the Amendment that I appeal to the House to support the Government in resisting it.


The right hon. Gentleman has given just the reply one would have expected. It may be there would be very practical difficulties, possibly insuperable difficulties, in carrying out the scheme that has been proposed from the Protectionist benches opposite. But what a condemnation this is of the whole theory and practice of Protection. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a first class Free Trade speech. He has made an unanswerable indictment of Tariff Reform. He never for a moment challenged what was the main contention of the hon. Member opposite, namely, that the firm quoted as an instance—which could no doubt be multiplied many times—which imports its raw material from abroad upon which duty is charged, a firm engaged mainly in the export trade, is suffering a serious disadvantage owing to the fact that the cost of its raw material has been very considerably enhanced by the amount of duty that has been placed upon it. That shows that you are going to do more harm indirectly than any good you are

likely to do by the imposition of these duties. I was not at all convinced by the difference the right hon. Gentleman tried to establish between a drawback on motor cars and a drawback such as is proposed by the hon. Member. That is not in the least inconsistent with what I say, that there might be much in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there would be very many difficulties in carrying out the proposal.

Of course the most effective way would be to pay an Excise officer or a Customs officer to watch this from the time it was unloaded at the docks, through the various processes of manufacture and then watch the manufactured article until it was placed on board for export again. But here again you get an illustration of the cumbersomeness, the inconvenience and the expense of Protection. You are going to spend just as much in the administration of the duty as any revenue you would be likely to get from it. The right hon. Gentleman has said we should have to have an Excise. But there is no Excise on motor cars manufactured in this country. Of course the right hon. Gentleman says it is more easy to identify the material of a motor car than the material that is manufactured into a cardboard box. But the two cases, the differing somewhat in detail, are generally on all fours. My objection, of course, is a general one to the duty as a whole, and the point which has been raised from the Protectionist benches opposite only proves how impracticable and injurious to the trade of the country these duties are.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 232.

Division No. 373.] AYES. [6.45 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Buchanan, G. Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Buckingham, Sir H. England, Colonel A.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Cape, Thomas Forrest, W.
Ammon, Charles George Charleton, H. C. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Attlee, Clement Richard Cluse, W. S. Gardner, J. P.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Gibbins, Joseph
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Gillett, George M.
Barnes, A. Compton, Joseph Gosling, Harry
Barr. J. Cove, W. G. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Batey, Joseph Crawford, H. E. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Dalton, Hugh Greenall, T.
Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish- Davies, David (Montgomery) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Brlant, Frank Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Groves, T.
Broad, F. A. Day, Colonel Harry Grundy, T. W.
Bromley, J. Dennison, R. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'i'd., Hexham) Duncan, C. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydyil)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Donnico, H. Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Hardie, George D. March, S. Smith, H. B. Lees. (Kelghiey)
Harney, E. A. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Smith. Rennie (Penistone)
Harris, Percy A. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Snell, Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Montague, Frederick Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Hayday, Arthur Morris, R. H. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Stamford, T. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Murnin, H. Stephen, Campbell
Hirst, G. H. Naylor, T. E. Sullivan, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oliver, George Harold Sutton, J. E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Palin, John Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Paling, W. Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hurst, Gerald B. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Thurtle, E.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W. Tinker, John Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West) Ponsonby. Arthur Townend, A. E.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Potts, John S. Varley, Frank B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rees. Sir Beddoe Vlant, S. P.
Kelly, W. T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wallhead, Richard C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Riley, Ben Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Kennedy, T. Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W.R., Elland) Warts Morgan. Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)
Kirkwood. D. Sakiatvala, Shapurji Welsh, J. C.
Lawrence, Susan Salter, Dr. Alfred Westwood, J.
Lee, F. Scrymgeour, Whiteley, W.
Lindley, F. W. Saxton, James Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Livingstone, A. M. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lowth, T. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Lunn, William Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mackinder, W. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles
MacLaren, Andrew Siesser, Sir Henry H. Edwards.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Smillie, Robert
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Albery, Irving James Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hume Sir G. H.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Curzon, Captain Viscount Huntingfield, Lord
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Hurd, Percy A.
Applln, Colonel R. V. K. Davies, Dr. Vernon Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Davies, Maj. Geo.F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Atholl, Duchess of Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Drewe, C. Jacob, A. E.
Balniel, Lord Eden, Captain Anthony James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Edmondson. Major A. J. Jephcott, A. R.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Elliot, Major Walter E. Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Ellis, R. G. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Elveden, Viscount Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Betterton, Henry B. Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Birchall. Major J. Dearman Everard, W. Lindsay Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Blundell, F. N. Fermoy, Lord Loder, J. de v.
Boothby, R. J. G. Fielden, E. B. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Finburgh, S. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Ford, Sir P. J. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Brassey, sir Leonard Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Frece, Sir Walter de McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Briscoe, Richard George Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Maclntyre, Ian
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony McLean, Major A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Galbraith. J. F. W. Macmillan, Captain H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Ganzoni, Sir John McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Gates, Percy Macquisten, F. A.
Bullock, Captain M. Globs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham MacRobert, Alexander M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel'
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Goff, Sir Park Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt.R. (Prtsmth.S.) Greene, W. P. Crawford Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Merriman, F. B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Meyer, Sir Frank
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Gunston, Captain D. W. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Charteris, Brigadier-Ganeral J. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Christie, J. A. Harland, A. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Clarry, Reginald George Harrison, G. J. C. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Cobb. Sir Cyril Haslam, Henry C. Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Olive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hawke, John Anthony Murchison, C. K.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Henderson, Capt. H.R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Neville, R. J.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Conway. Sir W. Martin Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'd.)
Cooper, A. Duff Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Nuttall, Ellis
Cope, Major William Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone) Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Pennefather, Sir John
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H, Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Hopkins, J. W. W. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Perring, Sir William George Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Waddington, R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Pitcher, G. Skelton, A. N. Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Pilditch, Sir Philip Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C.) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Preston, William Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Price, Major C. W. M. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Raine, W. Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.) Watts, Dr. T.
Ramsden, E. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wells, S. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Steel, Major Samuel Strang White Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Reid, D. D. (County Down) Storry-Deans, R. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Rentoul, G. S. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Rice, Sir Frederick Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Ropner, Major L. Styles, Captain H. Walter Wise, Sir Fredric
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Womersley, W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Wood E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Salmon, Major I. Tasker, Major R. Inigo Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham) Templeton, W. P. Wragg, Herbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.
Sandeman, A. Stewart Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Young, Ht. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Sanders, Sir Robert A. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Sandon, Lord Tinne, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Major Hennessy and Captain
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Margesson.
Shaw, B. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after the word "to," to insert the words any wrapping paper which is imported for the sole purpose of being used as raw material for the manufacture in Great Britain or Northern Ireland of carpets, matting, textilose, twine, boxes, bags, or to. The object of the Amendment is to exempt from the operation of this Clause any wrapping paper imported, for the sole purpose of being used as raw material in the manufacture in Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the articles mentioned in the Amendment. This Amendment represents the pure milk of Conservative theory. It never has been the doctrine of the Conservative party that raw materials should be taxed. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from what Mr. Chamberlain said in 1903 at Glasgow: I repeat now, in the most explicit terms, that I do not propose to tax the raw materials which are a necessity of our manufacturing trades. The raw materials referred to in the Amendment are the raw materials of certain well-recognised and well-known English manufacturing trades. The Amendment refers to those forms of paper imported from abroad upon which the prosperity of the carpet" matting, textilose, twine, box-making and bag-making industries in this country have been built up. The important thing to observe about these particular raw materials is that they are to a very large extent not made in England. The raw material which is used in the carpet

trade and in the matting and textilose trades are only produced by certain well-known mills in Canada and Scandinavia. No such kraft paper is produced at the present time in this country. I think the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall Caine) will be the first to admit that no such raw material is now made in England. This paper is imported from abroad as a substitute for jute, because it is cheaper and better than jute. The competing products in foreign industries with which the manufacturers of textilose, matting and carpet in this country have to compete, are not made of paper but made with jute as the raw material. Therefore, by taxing this raw material the Government are handicapping British industry in the home market and also in the foreign markets, where they have to compete with foreign manufactures, the raw materials of which are entirely free of tax.

The House should bear in mind that the usual provision made where the fully manufactured foreign article is to bear the tax does not apply in this case, because the foreign article which contains paper pays no tax, whereas the home-made article pays the tax because there is paper in its composition. In regard to straw paper, the hon. Member for East Dorset, who seems to know much more about this subject than the whole of the Front Bench, will agree that no straw paper is being made at the present time in this country. The reason that the foreign product is used here is because there is nothing of the sort made in England.


I disagree with that statement.


I have a letter from a firm of box makers in Manchester, who say: Probably the most unwarrantable part of the Paper Duty is that on straw paper, which is the raw material of a great portion of our business. There is no straw paper made in this country. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that A very inferior imitation is made not from straw but from waste papers, which are afterwards coloured to resemble straw. These are almost useless for box-making purposes. Those are the words not of partisans, but of people who have to use this particular raw material. Nobody knows more about their own business than the people in the business, and nobody knows less about the internal economy of business than the Board of Trade. That is our case for the exemption from these duties, of what are admittedly the raw materials of English industries, and which are not produced in this country.

I ask the House to support the Amendment, which is founded on Conservative principles and designed to further the interests of British manufacture. I also ask representatives of the Government to bear in mind the irritating effect of these duties upon the people engaged in these industries. At the present time there is a steady drift of those who used to be the reasonably-minded followers of the Liberal party and of the Socialist party, into our ranks. They interpret the levity, of later-day Liberalism as being just as revolting as the revolutionary policy of modern Socialism, and they are coming over to our ranks. Any policy of this sort, which deters people, from accepting the full programme of our party, is to be deplored.

I have another letter from another box maker in Manchester, who says that he is afraid that the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade will cost the Government a very large number of seats at the next Election. He says: Although I have voted Conservative for the last 30 years, it will probably be the last time. Second thoughts are best, and I have no doubt that long before the next election this gentleman will have realised that these are proportionately little matters compared with those big issues on which the fortunes of our country depend, and he will find it necessary to vote Conservative. I have quoted these letters as illustrations of the irritation and annoyance which these proposals of the Government are causing to a large number of dispassionate, non-partisan people, and in the hope that the Government may see light, even at this last moment.


I beg to second the Amendment.


Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

I think my hon. and learned Friend will permit me to say that whether we, who are manufacturers, are engaged in the Board of Trade or in our own business, when we listen to a lecture by a Chancery lawyer on trade we generally learn something. I do not think I can improve on a single word that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In the last remarks he made about an earlier Amendment he put the case for us, and better than I can put it, against this Amendment, the reasons for rejecting which are similar. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite accurately described the difficulties that would necessarily intervene if we tried to trace goods to their destination of manufacture. It is not an economic problem, it is a physical impossibility. Box makers and bag makers have supported these duties. If you were to give effect to this Amendment so far as bags are concerned, you would knock the bottom out of the whole scheme, as paper bag makers use roughly one-third of the imports of dutiable paper. It is impossible, administratively, to carry out the idea of my hon. Friend. On page 15 of the Report a point raising the same difficulty as that raised by the one under discussion is exhaustively dealt with by the Committee. They say: "In any case, the task of identifying the constituent material as of foreign and not of home origin would seem insuperable." That is our position in a nutshell. I must therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 219.

Division No. 374.] AYES. [7.4 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Groves, T. Potts, John S.
Amman, Charles George Grundy, T. W. Rees, Sir Beddoe
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Riley, Ben
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Robinson,W. C. (Yorks,W. R., Elland)
Barnes, A. Hardle, George D Saklatvala, Shapurji
Barr. J. Harris, Percy A. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Batey, Joseph Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Scrymgeour, E.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Heyday, Arthur Scurr, John
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Henn, Sir Sydney H. Sexton, James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Hirst, G. H. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Briant, Frank Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Broad. F. A. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hurst, Gerald B. Smillie, Robert
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Buchanan, G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cape, Thomas Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Stamford, T. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Kennedy, T. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell
Compton, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Sullivan, J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin Lee, F. Sutton, J. E.
Cove. W. G. Lindley, F. W. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Crawfurd, H. E. Livingstone, A. M. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Dalton, Hugh Lowth, T. Thurtie, E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lunn, William Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon) Townend, A. E.
Dennison, R. Mackinder, W. Varley, Frank B.
Duncan, C. MacLaren, Andrew Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wellhead, Richard C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) March, S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edwards, J Hugh (Accrington) Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)
England, Colonel A. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Welsh, J. C.
Forrest, W. Montague, Frederick Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Morris, R. H. Whiteley. W.
Gardner, J. P. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Gibbins, Joseph Murnin, H. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gillett, George M. Naylor, T. E. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gosling, Harry Oliver, George Harold
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Palin, John Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.) Paling, W. Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.
Greenall, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Everard, W. Lindsay
Albery, Irving James Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Fielden, E. B.
Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Finburgh, S.
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Ford, Sir P. J.
Applln. Colonel R V. K. Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Christie, J. A. Fraser, Captain Ian
Atholl, Duchess of Cobb, Sir Cyril Frece, Sir Walter de
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Balniel, Lord Conway, Sir W. Martin Galbraith, J. F. W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Cooper, A. Duff Ganzoni, Sir John
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Courtauld, Major J. S. Gates, Percy
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islington,N.) Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Bennett, A. J. Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Berry, Sir George Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Goff Sir Park
Betterton, Henry B. Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Greene, W. P. Crawford
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Crookshank, Col.H.(Llndsey,Galnsbro) Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blundell, F. N. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Boothby. R. J. G. Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Curzon, Captain Viscount Harland, A.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Davies, Dr. Vernon Harrison, G. J. C.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) Haslam. Henry C.
Briscoe, Richard George Dixon, captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Hawke, John Anthony
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Drewe, C. Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Eden, Captain Anthony Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Brown, Brig .-Gen. H. C. (Berks, NoWb'y) Edmondson, Major A, J. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Buckingham. Sir H. Elliot, Major Walter E. Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Ellis, R. G. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Bullock, Captain M. Elveden, Viscount. Hilton, Cecil
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Waston-s.-M.) Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Nuttall, Ellis Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Hopkins, J. W. W. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Storry-Deans, R.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Huntingfield, Lord Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Hurd, Percy A. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Perring, Sir William George Styles, Captain H. Walter
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Jacob, A. E. Pilditch, Sir Philip Tasker, Major R. Inigo
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Templeton, W. P.
Jephcott, A. R. Preston, William Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
King, Captain Henry Douglas Price, Major C. W. M. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Raine, W. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Ramadan, E. Tinne, J. A.
Little, Dr. E. Graham Rawson, Sir Cooper Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Reid, D. D. (County Down) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Rantoul, G. S. Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Loder, J. de V. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera Rice, Sir Frederick Waddington, R.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Ropner, Major L. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Salmon, Major I. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Macmillan, Captain H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Watts, Dr, T.
Macquisten, F. A. Sandeman, A. Stewart Wells, S. R.
MacRobert, Alexander M. sanders, Sir Robert A. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Sanderson, Sir Frank White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sandon, Lord Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)
Margesson, Captain D. Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Merriman, F. B. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Meyer, Sir Frank Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) Wise, Sir Fredric
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Shaw, Capt. Waiter (wilts, Westb'y) Wolmer, Viscount
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley Womersley, W. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wood, E. (Chest'r- Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Smith,R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Murchison, C. K. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Stanley, Cal. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) Major Sir Harry Barnston and
Major Cope.

I beg to move, in page 9, line l8, after the word "to," to insert the words " straw paper."

I do not propose to repeat the remarks I have already made on a previous Amendment on this subject.


I beg to second the Amendment.


This Amendment has, I think, by arrangement, been fully discussed before. The points were raised on the first discussion and I replied to them then. I take it it is unnecessary to do so again.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 209.

Division No. 375.] AYES. [7.12 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) Colfox, Major Wm. Philip Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ammon, Charles George Compton, Joseph Groves, T.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Cove, W. G. Grundy, T. W.
Attlee, Clement Richard Crawfurd, H. E. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Day, Colonel Harry Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Barr, J. Dennison, R. Hardie, George D.
Batey, Joseph Duncan, C. Harris, Percy A.
Beckett, John (Gateshead) Dunnico, H. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Bentinck. Lord Henry Cavendish- Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Hayday, Arthur
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Briant, Frank England, Colonel A. Hirst, G. H.
Broad, F. A. Forrest, W. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Bromley, J. Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Gardner, J. P. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Gibbins, Joseph Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Buchanan, G. Gillett, George M. John, William (Rhondda, West)
Cape. Thomas Gosling. Harry Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Charleton, H. C. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Cluse, W. S. Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Kelly, W. T.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Greenall, T. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Kennedy, T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Lawrence, Susan Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Stamford, T. W.
Lee, F. Ponsonby, Arthur Stephen, Campbell
Lindley, F. W. Potts, John S. Sullivan, J.
Livingstone, A. M. Rees, Sir Beddoe Sutton, J. E.
Lowth, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Lunn, William Riley, Ben Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon.J. R.(Aberavon) Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Ellond) Thurtle, E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Saklatvala, Shapurji Tinker, John Joseph
Mackinder, W. Salter, Dr. Alfred Townend, A. E.
MacLaren, Andrew Scrymgeour, E. Varley, Frank B.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Scurr, John Vlant, S. P.
March, S. Sexton, James Wallhead, Richard C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Montague, Frederick Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Welsh, J. C.
Morris, R. H. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Westwood, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Whiteley, W.
Murnin, H. Smillie, Robert Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Naylor, T. E. Smith, H. B. Less- (Keighley) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Oliver, George Harold Smith, Rennle (Penistone) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Palin, John Henry Snell, Harry
Paling, W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Edmondson, Major A. J. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Albery, Irving James Elliot, Major Waiter E. Macmillan, Captain H.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Ellis, R. G. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Elveden, Viscount Macquisten, F. A.
Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Everard, W. Lindsay Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Atholl, Duchess of Falle, Sir Bertram G. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fielden, E. B. Margesson, Captain D.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Finburgh, S. Merriman, F. B.
Balniel, Lord Ford, Sir P. J. Meyer, Sir Frank
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Fraser, Captain Ian Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Frece, Sir Walter de Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Bennett, A. J. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Berry, Sir George Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Betterton, Henry B. Galbraith, J. F. W. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Ganzoni, Sir John Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Blades, Sir George Rowland Gates, Percy Murchison, C. K.
Blundell, F. N. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Neville, R. J.
Boothby, R. J. G. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Goff Sir Park Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Greene, W. P. Crawford Nuttall, Ellis
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gunston, Captain D. W. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Briscoe, Richard George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Harland, A. Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks,Newb'y) Harrison, G. J. C. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Buckingham, Sir H. Hawke, John Anthony Pitcher, G.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Bullock, Captain M. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Preston, William
Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Price, Major C. W. M.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford, Raine, W.
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Hilton, Cecil Ramsden, E.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Rentoul, G. S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Holier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Rice, Sir Frederick
Christie, J. A. Hopkins, J. W. W. Ropner, Major L.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Clarry, Reginald George Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hurd, Percy A. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Cooper, A. Duff Jacob, A. E. Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Courtauld, Major J. S. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Jephcott, A. R. Sandon, Lord
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) King, Captain Henry Douglas Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Little, Dr. E. Graham Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll) Lode', J. de V. Smith,R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Drewe, C. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Eden, Captain Anthony Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Tune, J. A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George
Steel, Major Samuel Strang Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough Wise, sir Fredric
Starry-Deans, R. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. Wolmer, Viscount
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. Waddington, R. Womersley, W. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wallace, Captain D. E. Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Styles, Captain H. Waiter Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on Hull) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Sudden, Sir Wilfrid Waterhouse, Captain Charles Wragg, Herbert
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Templeton, W. P. Watts, Dr. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Wells, S. R. Major Cope and Captain Viscount
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. Curzon.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after the word "to," to insert the words "vulcanising paper, vulcanised fibre."

I understand that the Government are making some concession in regard to this, and therefore I will only move it formally.


I beg to second the Amendment.


I think the hon. Member has put this Amendment down owing to some fears he has, and in some degree I shall show them to be groundless. Paper used for vulcanising is not imported into this country in any appreciable quantity. If it were it would be almost impossible to trace it to its destination in manufacture. The views of the Committee expressed on page 15 of the Report, and I have already read the applicable extract, have equal force in relation to this Amendment we are now discussing. It is a physical difficulty. As regards vulcanised fibre, that does not come within the scope of the Bill and is not taxed. Therefore the hon. Member need have no fear of it being subject to tax. These explanations will probably satisfy the hon. Member, and I suggest, therefore, that he should withdraw the Amendment.


May I make one point clear. The announcement which has been made means that the Government are prepared to admit into this country the finished article and are going to tax the raw material, out of which that article is made, up to 16⅔ of its value. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, but I want the House and the country to realise what the Government are doing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper

In page 9, line 20, after the first "paper," insert "papers which are im-

ported for the purpose of being converted into wall paper or envelopes."—[Mr. Mackenzie Livingstone.]

In page 9, line 23, at end, insert (3) There shall he allowed and paid in the case of any manufactured or made article exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland a drawback equal to the amount shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to have been paid as duty on the paper used for packing or wrapping."—[Sir John Marriott.]


The first Amendment has already been covered by a decision of the House, and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is out of order, because it will involve a tax upon the subject.