CLAUSE 15.—(Duties on Playing Cards.) (Hansard, 28 July 1926)

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter in connection with this Clause, which shows that these taxes are going to be imposed, not only on goods imported into the Isle of Man from abroad, but also on goods imported into the Island from this country. The proviso to Sub-section (1) reads: Provided that where the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that 2275 any pack so removed or imported has been manufactured in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the duty of Customs to be charged on any such pack shall be at the rate of threepence per pack. That appears to me to be cutting off our own nose to spite our face. What is the use of bringing in an elaborate system of Protection for the industries of this country when you bring in a subsidiary Bill to impose taxes on manufactured goods exported from this country to one of its Dominions, namely, the Isle of Man? It is not only that the duties in this Bill and in this Clause are the same, but the very wording of the Clause is the same as that of the Clause in which these duties are imposed on goods imported into Great Britain. The Clauses are the same and the words are the same. It is obvious that, while the hand may be the hand of the Tynwald, the voice is the voice of the British Government.

Mr. CAINE
I wish to dissociate myself from the expressions that have fallen from hon. Members on the Liberal benches with regard to the effect of the safeguarding duties on the inhabitants of the Isle of Man. I think it is very much to their interest that they should impose safeguarding duties, because, being largely dependent upon visitors, they are largely dependent upon the prosperity of the workers and the people in general in this country. I notice that there is a serious omission from this Bill. On the Second Reading yesterday, I pressed the Financial Secretary, and I venture to press him again, with regard to it. The Wrapping Paper Duties, which were passed in the Financial Bill, have been omitted from this Billߞ

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell)
On a point of Order. If, as my hon. Friend says, there is an omission from the Bill, can it be discussed on the Third Reading?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)
It is not in order on the Third Reading. The discussion then must be confined to what is in the Bill.

Captain BENN
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Chief Whip to closure his own followers?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It may, on occasion, even be desirable.

Mr. CAINE
If it is forbidden to me to discuss something which has been omitted from the Bill, of course I can say nothing. I am afraid my hon. Friends do not realise the danger of the point I was raising. They have supported certain Measures in the Finance Bill, and now are going to leave an open door by which these goods can be sent into this country. I regret to see that they take the matter in such a way. I am sorry that there has been this omission, but I think the Treasury and this House have a perfect right to point out to the Manx Legislature that a serious omission has been madeߞ

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
This might have been taken on the Second Reading, or on the Motion that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill, but I do not think it can be taken on the Third Reading.

§ Mr. REMER
I want to raise a constitutional issue which I think arises on this question. It appears to me to be quite open to the Isle of Man to eliminate the whisky duty from its taxes, so that we might have a sort of bootlegging importation into this country. I hope the Financial Secretary will look into this point and see by what means, before this Bill comes forward next year, some negotiations may be undertaken so that the taxes in the Isle of Man may coincide with those imposed in this country.

§ Mr. HARRIS
This discussion has revealed certain curiosities in the method of imposing taxes which are almost unique. When we had a Free Trade Government in 1924, the tariff proposals of the Isle of Man were on an entirely different basis and principle. They then, by a curious coincidence, avoided all taint 2277 of Protection. Now that there has been a change of Government, we have an elaborate attempt to experiment on a small scale with Protection. Apparently it draws the line at laces and silk stockings, and does not go as far as the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Caine) would like. We want to clear our minds of cant and face the fact that the suggestion that this island has a responsible Government is not borne out. If it had a responsible Government, which could be turned out if its action were disapproved of, I should be the last to criticize—

§ Mr. BLUNDELL
On a point of Order. Is it an order to suggest that the Tynwald is not a responsible Government?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I should not like to say the hon. Member is not in order until I have got a grasp of the full consequence of his remarks.

§ Mr. HARRIS
The suggestion by the Financial Secretary is that the Isle of Man Legislature have a free choice as to their taxes and that this House has no right to intervene. They have not a free choice. They are strictly limited by the policy prevailing at the Treasury at a particular period. If it is a Free Trade Treasury, they can only pass Free Trade taxes; if it is a Protectionist Treasury, they must choose Protectionist taxes. Therefore, to pretend that we must not criticise or interfere with these taxes on the ground that is is an invasion of the rights of a Dominion or other Legislature is pure fiction. The right hon. Gentleman, with all his superiority and patronising airs, knows that what I am saying is true. He may display the dignity of a Treasury official and try to ride the high horse over private Members, but I can assure him that he deceives nobody, not even himself.

§ Major COLFOX
What is a Free Trade Customs duty?

Mr. ALEXANDER
I should like to say that I have been associated in some measure with the opposition to this Bill, because I believe that the Government have a great responsibility in regard to the Customs duties which are levied in the Isle of Man. It is true that they are imposed, varied or abolished by the Tynwald, with the consent of the House of Keys, but they are introduced through the initiative of the representative of the 2278 Crown. It is obvious what has happened under different Governments, and that this procedure has been followed. Therefore we are entitled to ask in respect of the people in the Isle of Man upon whom these taxes are levied, what is their capacity to pay. I observe from the Report of the Privy Council Committee that a very much larger proportion of the revenue of the Isle of Man is raised from indirect taxation therein from direct taxation. The main object I have had in view in drawing attention to the question of capacity to pay has been to remind the House that there must be a large number of the poorer people in the Isle of Man who will suffer great hardship by the imposition of these duties, in addition to the indirect taxes which are recounted in the Report of the Privy Council Committee. The Report says that the Exchequer revenue from Customs duties was £278,600 in the year with which the Report deals. The whole population of the Isle of Man is less than 50, 000.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
They charge the trippers with it.

§ Major COLFOX
On a point of Order, is not the whole argument of the hon. Member calling in question the discretion of the Manx Legislature as to how they shall apportion taxation between direct and indirect taxes?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not think the hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. ALEXANDER
I am definitely speaking my views in regard to the poorer people of the isle of Man. It is no answer to say that they can put the charge on the trippers to the Isle of Man. If the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) had read the Report, he would have found a statement by the Committee that they cannot find that more than three-eighths of the total duties can be passed on to the trippers. My point is that we are, by passing this Bill, levying dutiesߞ[HON. MEMBERS: "We are not; they are levied by the Isle of Man Legislature."] Hon. Members who interrupt me must surely know, if they have listened to the arguments, that to have the duties in this Bill for a period longer than six months, it is necessary for this House to pass this Bill. To continue for more than six months, it is 2279 necessary for us to pass a Bill through this House. Therefore it is true to say that for a period exceeding six months we impose a duty. By passing this Bill to-night, you are increasing indirect taxation in the Isle of Man, which already amounts to £5 10s. per head. I ask hon. Members what they would think if that could be said of all the working classes in Great Britain l When the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) spoke just now I was strengthened in my own case for raising this point. He said that six colleagues of his own workers' union are Members of the House of Keys. They are concerned with the position of working-class consumers in the Isle of Man. We have had no evidence from the Government as to whether the Bill was debated in the House of Keys or whether there was any opposition from the workers' representatives. If we look up the Debate of 1918 in which a reply to the Government was given by the present Prime Minister, we find that he drew attention to the poverty of the Isle If 2280 Man owing to the War and said that it may be we were asking as much as ever the people of the Isle of Man could stand. Now we have the recommendation of a Privy Council Committee to increase the charge and, inter alia, we get this Bill, which increases the amount of revenue to be raised by Customs duties.