§ Mr. WEBBI beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I do this, not because I fail to recognise that the Government have thought better, for the third or fourth time, with regard to this Clause, as I see that the right hon. Gentleman is going to move to omit Sub-section (5), which is one of the worst Sub-sections in it from my point of view. I wish he had gone further, and had left out some of the other Sub-sections. It shows, after all, that argument has some effect, when we remember how obdurate he and his colleagues were during the 15 days of the Committee stage of the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having seen reason, in that he will presently move to omit Sub-section (5), and also a number of words from Sub-sections (6) and (8), and so on. There will still, how- 102 ever, be a great deal in this Clause—which is the essential Clause of the Bill—to which I, unfortunately, have to take exception.
In the first place, this Bill introduces what seems to us to be the vicious principle of interposing a nominated Committee between the executive Department of the Minister, who will be responsible in this House, and the traders concerned. Over and over again we have seen, under the procedure of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, that, when the matter has come before the House and representations have been made to the Minister himself, he has replied practically protecting himself by the Report of the Committee which he had himself appointed and selected for the purpose; we have found him using the Report of that Committee as an excuse for the action he has taken, without necessarily justifying himself to the House by argument. It seems to us 103 essential that the responsibility should rest on the Minister, rather than upon a Committee appointed by the Minister himself. I do not suggest that he would necessarily appoint partisans, but, still, it is not in human nature that he should appoint opponents, and the difficulty of discovering unbiased and impartial persons in matters of this kind is extremely great. I object to the handing over of these matters to committees who, apparently, will be paid for their services. They will be, as it were, professional committees. I will not call them professional jurymen, but, at any rate, they will be professional committee-men for this purpose, giving, apparently, their whole time to the work. I do not think any-the worse of them for that, but I do not think the House ought to consider that committees of that sort are justified for the purpose of determining large questions of policy relating to our external trade.
We had a great struggle in Committee as to what the nature of these committees should be. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the drafting as it now stands will ensure that the proceedings of the committees shall be in every proper sense public, with proper notice, and proper hours, and proper opportunities for objectors to be there, subject, of course, to sittings in camera when anything really controversial has to be dealt with. Although, however, the proceedings of the committees will be public, they will still be open to the objection that it is they who will virtually have to settle great questions of policy affecting trades of very considerable importance. Then we object to them on the ground that the notice is hardly adequate. That point has just been discussed on Clause 1. Clause 1 will only give six months' notice before the time at which acts hitherto lawful become crimes. That, in the case of stocks, is not enough. Here there will be an inquiry and an Order in Council, and the Order in Council will settle the date at which the Order shall come into operation. That is to be not less than three months from the date of making the Order. Therefore, it looks as though, in ordinary cases, something like six months' notice will be the total notice, including all preliminary proceed- 104 ings and the three months' notice given by the Order. That appears to us to be altogether too short a notice for the making into new crimes of what was formerly lawful. People have a certain amount of stock on their hands, which they will not be able to continue selling without some alteration, and, as was suggested just now, the unfortunate retailer sometimes does not know whether the goods are foreign or not. Therefore, I do not think I am unduly taxing the patience of the House if I say we object to Clause 2 altogether, and the only way of registering our objection at this stage is to move to leave out the Clause.
§ Mr. HARRISOn this Clause we shall have an opportunity of showing our objection to the way in which this particular scheme is to be worked. I know that there is a case for educating people in the country in geography—letting them know where the articles that they buy come from, and encouraging them to show a leaning towards home-produced or Empire-produced goods. These things are desirable, but there is a wrong way and a right way to carry out the purpose of this Bill. I think that, if we could get the President of the Board of Trade, in his private room at the offices of the Board, to make a frank statement of his opinion of his own Bill, he would not be very proud of it. He would have to admit that the only justification for the Bill taking this particular form is the successful opposition to previous Bills that had the same purpose. Private Members' Bills were introduced last year and the year before, endeavouring to do the very same thing as this Bill, and, owing to the skill, if you like, of the Opposition, and owing to the fact that many Members felt very strongly about these proposals, they, unlike this Bill, never got beyond the Committee stage.
In order to circumvent the opposition—I do not feel any doubt as to it—this Bill has been framed in this particular form. It is in the interests of the public, it is in the interests of trade, and in the interests of everyone concerned, that there should be a Schedule to the Bill specifying the articles dealt with, so that anyone reading the Bill would know what it is to effect. In order, however, to avoid a Schedule, which, of course, is open to amendment—as soon as you start 105 enumerating articles, you can add or subtract—the right hon. Gentleman, with the help of very skilful draftsmen, has produced this wretched Bill, with all its committees and other paraphernalia, the effect of which will be only to injure and hinder trade. It will result in the setting up of a whole body of committees. How many there will be largely depends, of course, on the President himself, but they are going to provide—I do not think this is realised by hon. Members opposite or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a lot of nice, cushy jobs for retired civil servants. The number of members of each committee is to be three, and each of them is to be paid; and, as I assume that the Bill is going to eke out its existence for a long time, so these paid jobs will go on.
If we are to have machinery of this kind, no doubt it is well that it should be worked through civil servants, who are not under the suspicion of bias, but it is a thoroughly vicious method, which will handicap and hinder trade, to set up a large number of committees to in-quire whether goods shall be branded or not, what kind of brand shall be used, whether it shall be put on the bottom or the side of the article, and so on. We have already had some experience of the inconvenience of the safeguarding machinery, and now these hundreds of committees are going to spring up under the magic wand of the President of the Board of Trade. This Clause will make it very much more difficult for trade to be carried on. I am surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway do not welcome this proposal. It is going to discredit private enterprise and make it far more difficult for a business man to earn a living, because the Board of Trade is going to interfere with him at every turn, manufacture new crimes, and drag the unfortunate tradesman before the Courts of law because, forsooth, he has failed to brand some particular article. When the public sees this machinery at work, it will realise what a serious interference it is with trade and commerce. It will make the cost of living even dearer than it is at present. One of the great reasons of the industrial unrest is the enormously increased cost of living com-pared with pre-War conditions. Now the Government, with all these elaborate committees and regulations, is going to 106 add even to the higher cost of living, because it will make articles more difficult to produce, requiring all sorts of inquiries and regulations.
It is too late to stop the Bill going through. Our only hope is that we may amend it a bit. If we could drop this Clause it would knock the bottom out of the Bill, and that would not be a bad thing. There is no public opinion in favour of it. The Chambers of Commerce have made it quite clear, in petitions, in letters and in Resolutions, that they are opposed to it in principle and in detail. I have here a letter from the London Chamber of Commerce, which has very strong Conservative sympathies and is inclined to support the Government. It wants a stable Government. It wants peace and tranquility, and it is largely prejudiced in favour of the Government. But this Bill and this Clause are too thick for even the London Chamber of Commerce. They unanimously passed the following Resolution:
The Council of the London Chamber of Commerce is of opinion that the country cannot afford at the present time, Voluntarily and by its own act, to destroy any portion of its existing trade. It therefore views with alarm the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment to the Merchandise Marks Bill enabling an Order to be made for the marking of manufactured goods before importation, and it is especially disturbed that the Government should have accepted this Amendment. … This Council, conscious of the fact that the re-export trade, representing some £165,000,000 per annum, is made up of a multiplicity of commodities, sees in this the possibility of the re-export trade being destroyed piece; meal. Moreover, it is opposed on principle to such comprehensive power for harm being entrusted to any appointed Committee or Minister of the Crown.Strengthened by that Resolution, we are entitled to ask the House to vote against this Clause, and, if the result of voting against it be to destroy the Bill, the business of the country will have the advantage of being saved the increased cost which the Bill must ultimately involve.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. Member's principal objection to the Measure is the possibility that it will become law. I am afraid I cannot offer the Opposition Bills which are unlikely to become law. That is not the function of the Government. He cited a Resolution passed by the London Chamber of Commerce. While the council of the 107 London Chamber of Commerce, or a section of it, have passed one Resolution, I observe that even that body is not unanimous, because I have also received from the electrical and allied trades section of that chamber a Resolution saying they are most anxious to have the Bill, that they think the onus of proof should be on their opponents, and that not only should it be passed in the form in which it was origiNally introduced, but that there should be discretion to mark manufactured goods on importation. I could produce a far more numerous and imposing array of authorities than the hon. Member. He cited a portion of one chamber, albeit a large one, largely consisting of importers; but, more important than that, if we are to measure this in units of chambers, is the great aggregation of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which passed a Resolution—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWhen the Bill was introduced. If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will deal with his anxiety. Their Resolution implied that they did not think the Bill went nearly far enough. They approved the principle of the Bill, but considered it should be divided into two sections, and the first dealing with imported produce should be compulsory, so they would go further than I am going. They would put a lot of things into the Bill and say straight away without inquiry, "Let us have them all marked." If, therefore, we are to decide on the judgment of these chambers of commerce, the aggregation of chambers as opposed to its separate component elements is in favour of the Measure. I noticed a speech by the president of the London Chamber of Commerce at the Mansion House in which he said it was untrue to say the opinion of the London Chamber and all its branches was against the Bill.
§ Mr. HARRISI am informed by the secretary that the Resolution I quoted was passed unanimously and that the meeting represented all sections.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIt probably represented all sections that were present at the meeting, but it is plain that there were other sections not present who were not in favour of it. I 108 make the hon. Member a present of any support he can find in any quarter, but the great aggregation of these chambers is in favour of it. Another body that he does not cite is the Federation of British Industries. If we are to cite these bodies, why does he only cite a body of merchants? Why not manufacturers I Manufacturers are as much entitled to be cited as merchants and they are unanimously in favour. So are the National Union of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers, the pottery trade, and the cutlers. I am prepared to argue this, not by citation, but upon its merits, but if we are to have a citation of authorities, I think I have said enough to show that the balance of quoted authority is largely in favour of this Measure and this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) was more particular and more individual in his criticism of the Clause. I thought the Socialist party was all in favour of Committees, and frequently Resolved itself into Committees. I am not sure that I cannot say the conduct of Parliamentary business is almost vested in a Committee, and therefore I was surprised that he objected to Committees.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI see. You have to pursue the method of election. The merit of this Bill is that the Minister may rely upon advice given after inquiry. I am certain if I introduced a Bill and said everything was to be marked, there would be a howl of indignation from the right lion. Gentleman, "How do you know what wants to be marked? You should have careful inquiry as to what should be marked and how and when it should be marked." I have heard him say in Committee that even the smallest objector: should be heard. What is the good of saying that if we are not to have a Committee? How are you going to hear all the objections unless you have a Committee? Every single body that has ever investigated this question of merchandise marks; every Committee that has reported, departmental or general, has invariably said the right and only possible way of dealing with this is to have inquiries as to what ought to be marked and the method 109 of marking. It is idle to say that is going to take away Parliamentary or Ministerial responsibility, It will be open to the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks the Government are conducting this business improperly in the appointment of Committees or in the action they take upon the report of a Committee—he knows enough about Parliamentary practice to know that every avenue of attack is open to him—to do anything, from putting down a Vote of Censure on the Government to raising it on my Vote, or the Vote of the Minister of Agriculture. Every Order that is made has to lie on the Table, and if he objects to the Order he can move a Prayer against it. It is really ridiculous to suggest that we are devolving our responsibility, either as a Government or as a House of Commons, upon a Committee because we ask the Committee to make inquiries.
Finally, his objection was that there was insufficient notice. Really how much notice is required? I think notice which will see us well over the next General Election was in his mind. The Bill was introduced in May; therefore, people have known it was coming on. The Committees have to be appointed. If an inquiry is to be held, there has to be 28 days' published notice before an inquiry can take place, so that people can snake their objections. Then the inquiry takes place. The Committee have to consider their report and it has to be published. After it has been published, if the Government are of opinion that it should be carried out, they frame an Order. When the Order is framed it has to lie for 20 Parliamentary days. It will then be at least three months before it can come into force. When I am told that this notice is inadequate to bring to the attention of people what is going to be done, really I think more valid objections must be adduced.
§ Mr. HARDIEI have been trying to understand how it is possible to get such a confused Bill as this. When we on this side seek to do anything by a Bill which is called Socialistic, hon. Members opposite always say that we shall create another flock of paid officials. They never try to meet the arguments or to debate the principles of the Bill; they always try to steal away from the argu- 110 ments by saying that our proposals will create a new flock of officials. If any Bill was calculated to create officials, this Bill seems to me to go pretty near to the maximum. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green South-West (Mr. Harris) referred to the need for educating the British public in geography. I am all for education, but this will be a very expensive form of education in geography, because everything that is done by this Bill is done in what I call the underhand way. The Government wish to secure Protection, despite the statement made by the present Prime Minister that he was not being returned on the Protectionist issue. Therefore, they introduce a Merchandise Marks Bill and try to cover up their real business.
This Clause starts with a public inquiry, then a Committee is appointed, the Committee has to report, and then the Department considers the Report, and it may or may not act upon the Report. If any Clause in the Bill ought to have something definite in it, it is this Clause, because it is the main Clause. If the Government had any definite ideas, they would have put in this Clause the determining factor, and would have avoided the necessity of using the word "may." it cannot be a question of "may." These Committees are to be composed of experts, and it must follow that the Government must accept the findings of their experts, because, they say that these gentlemen know more about it than the Government. What a silly thing it is after having set up a Committee of experts, to insert the word "may." Surely, the Department are bound to accept what the Committee recommend.
We hear about new crimes and present crimes. This Bill does not go near dealing with any present crimes. We do not know how it will work. We cannot say what it will do, because we do not know how the committees will act, whether they will be guided by personal interests or by the big principle of national interest. That is where danger comes in in committee work under this Bill. At the present time, there is a great trade going on in the raising of country eggs. We find that when people cannot make their farms pay by running country eggs, they buy cases of Danish eggs, dip them in buttermilk and then Polish them off with a 111 piece of chamois leather, and they come out as country eggs. There ought to have been something in the Bill, if it is to protect the consumer from the profiteer, of a definite character to protect him against that sort of thing. There is also the production of butter. A man may make a little butter, and then he brings in some foreign butter, mixes it with the home product, doubles the quantity and sends out this mixed butter as being just fresh from the farm and made in this country. The Government ought to deal with that kind of thing, and with that object in view they ought to have been quite definite and have left out the permissive word "may." The use of "may" is always the line taken by those who are ignorant on the subject, or who are afraid to pursue the right course.
When we come to the end of the Clause, we reach the point with respect to an Order-in-Council. Why are the Government worrying about an Order-in-Council? There is only one way of righting the wrong from which we suffer as consumers, and that is to get at the basis of things. This Bill does not really protect the consumer. It has been left in a much worse position than it was before. Complications are bound to follow the action of the various committees. Their investigations will produce a mass of contradictions, which are bound to arise from the various personal interests in the trades to which the members of the committees belong. It would have been far better had the Government said: "We have tried, but we have failed, and we will have another try by producing a better Bill." This Bill as it stands accomplishes nothing but the formation of committees, with 10 chances to one that each committee will report against the other. We have had evidence to-day of contradictions in the letter read from the London Chamber of Commerce by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, South-West (Mr. Harris), and the letter read by the President of the Board of Trade from the same body, giving another opinion. That shows clearly that the Government are not getting down to this matter in the right way. They ought to have known definitely that this Bill had a majority of support in the country, but they cannot say that.
112 It is no use reading letters from Chambers of Commerce. We all know that members of Chambers of Commerce are simply swayed by interest in their own trade. I know of Tories who are Tories in everything else, but because Free Trade is good for their business they are against anything la the way of Protection. In Chambers of Commerce the personal interest comes in, and that is why there is difference of opinion. I hope the Government will not further blacken their already black record, but that they will take thought and mind, as we say in Scotland, and pass this Bill on to another Department, in order that it may be reconstructed and brought forward for further consideration later.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI do not think it has been sufficiently emphasised how extraordinarily the scope of this Bill was increased in Committee. When the Bill left this House, Clause 2 (2) read:
If it appears to a committee to be desirable that any imported goods being foodstuffs should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation. …The words "being foodstuffs" were struck out in Committee.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am preserving that point for subsequent discussion. It will arise later.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI only alluded to that here because I wanted to explain how it is that the London Chamber of Commerce is so very much disturbed. I only want to point out that the reason the London Chamber of Commerce and other chambers of commerce have become so much alarmed, was because of the alteration which took place in Committee and that the letter which was read from the London Chamber of Commerce on the Second Reading, generally blessing the principles of the Bill, was a, letter which does not apply to Clause 2 as it stands at the present time it is true that certain chambers of commerce have blessed the Bill, but I want hon. Members to bear in mind that those chambers of commerce which have blessed the Bill are inland bodies, and that the people who are so excessively exasperated in regard to the matter are the port chambers of commerce. I want to speak on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce. The London Chamber of Commerce is not a negligible body.
113 A very great part of the unemployment in London is the direct result of the slackness of trade in the Landon docks, and when I speak upon this matter I have in my mind very vividly the great numbers of unemployed persons along the riverside in Poplar, West Ham and East Ham who are out of work because of the slackness of trade. The Volume of the trade of the Port of London is an extra-ordinarily important thing, Every London Member of Parliament realises that daily in seeing the results of slack-ness of trade in the homes of the people. What the London Chamber of Commerce complains of is the interference with the re-export trade and the difficulties with regard to what is called the entrepot trade. The list of those sections of the London Chamber of Commerce who oppose this Bill is very large—the Canned Goods Section, the China and Glassware Section, the East India Section, the Fancy Goods Section, the Green Fruit and Vegetables Section, the Appliances Wholesale Section, the Import and Export Merchants' Association. I do not suppose there is anything more important to the riverside than the trade carried on by these people. Then there are the Glass and Proprietary Articles Section, the Butter Trade Section, the Perfumery Manufacturers Section, the Petroleum Oil Trade Section—which is very important—the Silk Trade Section, the South African Section, the West African Section, and many others.
All these sections are in the utmost alarm and point out that the trade which they represent is estimated at £165,000,000 a year. They say that, especially at the present time, it is a very dangerous thing to place any restriction upon commerce. They instance especially the difficulties of the re-export trade and say that what is in the Bill does not help them, because the merchant goes abroad to one of the Continental entrepot markets and picks up, perhaps, a great quantity of goods which have not been marked prior to importation, and can-not be so marked, because the destiny of the goods is not known by those who send the goods to these entrepot markets. The Bill will very seriously injure the buying of these goods, because it is obvious that such goods cannot be-marked prior to importation. They go into the Continental market without the 114 producer knowing the country of destination. Further, with regard to the re-export trade it is pointed out that the destiny of these goods is still uncertain even after the goods have reached England. The merchant buys the stuff, but he has no knowledge until his orders come in whether he will send the goods inland in this country or re-export them to other places. Inland chambers of commerce composed of manufacturers who have an eye to their own goods, and I do not blame them, are ignorant of the circumstances of our export and import trade.
7.0 P.M.
When you have a great body of merchants in a port like London and in other ports of the country, not from any question of polities, because these people are generally Conservative in politics, not with any possible prejudice, but as practical people knowing their business, explaining to us that this Clause, enlarged as it was in Committee, is detrimental to their trade, then I think that the President of the Board of Trade, whose duty it is not to look after industry, but to look after trade, should think two or three times before he does what in the opinion of the merchants who carry on the trade will hamper their business. It is true of this Bill that every section is concerned with pushing off the duty on to somebody else. The merchants want to push it off on to the retailer or wholesaler. The retailer wishes to push it off on to the, wholesaler or on to the market prior to importation. Every section of the community, which is charged with the responsibility of carrying out this Bill, is out on the warpath trying, if they cannot get this Bill destroyed, at any rate to get the onerous burdens shifted on to some other section of the public. You will find that Chambers of Commerce who approve of this Bill are asking that the merchants should have the trouble of it, and not they themselves. Every class of industry, wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers and merchants, are unanimous in saying that, whoever has the responsibility of marking the goods, it should not be themselves. It is true that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce want the manufacturers to hold the baby, and that the manufacturers are asking that, if anything really must be done, someone else in trade must bear the burden.
115 That is the explanation of the conflicting positions of Chambers of Commerce. As the Bill shifted and took shape in Committee, as it altered from day to day, as the Minister brought in fresh Amendments to satisfy those hungrily yelping outside, as he made concessions and gave a little sop to one trade interest, so their colleagues in another part of industry invariably pointed out that the concessions given to one had weakened their own position. There never has been a Bill so cut about and so amended. Its protection is its very tediousness. If it had been a more interesting subject, if Members-mild have watched the variations, they would have realised that a Bill so shifting in its character, so pulled about by competing interests, must be a Bill based on a wrong principle. What is protecting this Bill is that Members opposite believe it is all to the best, and will more or less protect British trade. British trade itself is crying outside the doors of Parliament, and any Members who will listen will hear it begging them to protect it from its friends. The House is making a mistake in pressing through so highly technical and complicated a Bill of this kind.
It is said that the consumer should know. That is an easy object. If you want to let the consumer know, let all British goods bear upon them the label, "Made in Britain," and leave it at that. It would be a very simple thing to instruct all British manufacturers to place on their goods, "Made in England," or "Made in Scotland," as the case may be. Then you would not have any of these complications or any necessity for setting up innumerable Committees. That would be the simple, plain, straightforward way of attaining that object. Can anyone not see that if the difficult, complicated, contentious way is chosen, it is because something more is wanted than informing the consumer? It is because it is thought that this Bill will in some way or other restrict the importation of foreign goods. If all that was necessary was to tell the consumer what he was buying, why did the right hon. Gentleman not have that simple piece of legislation and ask all manufacturers to put on their goods, "Made in England"? If he had done that, the London Chamber of Commerce would not 116 be telling him that he was seriously injuring the re-export trade. That that simple course was not taken is one of the greatest condemnations of the Bill, and exposes what I believe to be its real purpose and what undoubtedly will be its real effect.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI hope that hon. Members will keep to Clause 2, and not discuss the whole Bill.
§ Mr. BARNESI think that this occasion is a suitable one on which to draw the attention of the House to the very grave changes that have taken place in Committee since the Bill received its Second Reading. A great deal of attention has been devoted to the fact that the interests which claim to represent the distributive and export trades in this country are now found to oppose this Bill, and particularly Clause 2. If there is that change, there must be a reason for it, but, as Mr. Speaker has decided that the discussion on the words "Foodstuffs" must be taken separately, I do not want to mention that change at this particular moment, except to point out that this is the reason for the opposition. Those Members who listened to the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, when he quoted various other chambers and representative bodies as against the London Chamber of Commerce, must have noticed that the President of the Board of Trade was referring to manufacturers' associations, whereas the London Chamber of Commerce, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and the organisations which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) read out, represent the distributive side. That is worth emphasis for the reason that this Bill was introduced ostensibly to protect the interests of the consumer, to disclose to the consumer the origin a the products he was buying. Either the Bill still intends to serve that purpose, or it has been changed in character. It is futile for the President of the Board of Trade to bring forward manufacturing associations, for, if he does, he merely discloses the fact that this is a Protectionist Bill. He mentioned the Electrical Manufacturers' Association as supporting this Bill. Those who wilt look at the organisations which the hon. Member for East Ham North, read out—and 117 she did not complete them—will find that the Electrical Importers and Traders' Association are opposing this Bill. That brings us to the kernel of the whole matter. I do not know of any distributive organisation in the country, whether it represents the food trade, the dry goods trade, general merchandise, or any other trade involving shipping, that is supporting this Bill. The only organisations that the President can quote are manufacturing organisations.
Let me emphasise the main factors that influence the consumer. If the consumer be poor, like the vast majority of consumers in this country, price is the first consideration. With all the difficulties that Clause 2 raises, there is very considerable ground for fearing that price in ninny directions may be affected. The second item of consideration is quality. If the consumer be well-to-do, quality takes a prior place to price; in the general run of purchasers in this country, quality comes second to price. As a matter of fact, this Bill does not deal with the problem of quality at all. Take Danish bacon. It has not gained its position, on the English market because it is inferior to British products or because it has been foisted on the public through insufficient knowledge. It has built up its reputation on the British market on a standard of quality. Anyone, who has given any study to the tendency of purchasers and to what builds up the trade in any article, will know that the best line of progress is by merchants establishing a certain grade of quality, a standard of goods that they submit to the consumer, and which the consumer knows will be a standard quality and one which there is some security in buying. This Bill, instead of improving the British market or the Dominion market, is going to worsen it and to benefit the foreign importer. When we come to the third point that interests the consumer, the matter of sentiment, here I agree that the disclosure of the origin can in a subsidiary sense, provided that the other two factors of price and quality are taken into consideration, prove a desirable thing in the sales of a commodity. Anyone engaged in trade knows that the advertisement of Empire and home products is improving the sale of those commodities. The sentimental bent of a purchaser in this country is first to purchase home pro- 118 ducts, secondly Imperial products, and lastly foreign products. That is the sentimental desire of the consumer; what modifies it is the price and the quality.
This House would be better engaged, on behalf of British trade generally, if it paid more attention to that problem of price and quality in regard to British and Imperial products rather than in passing vexatious legislation of this description, which hampers trade, makes the problem of commerce and industry much more difficult and in its last resort builds up opposition. You may say that the consumers of the country will not understand the Bill. They will not. The average man in the street is not bothering about the Bill at the moment, but in trade the irritations introduced by measures of this description, though slow in their accumulation, are inevitable in their consequences. That is why the general merchandise interests of the country have so far been powerful enough to prevent legislation of this description. There is another aspect of sentiment which the Bill does not touch at all, and which fortifies me in my statement that, it is a Bill in the manufacturers' interest and not in that of the consumers. If we desire to appeal to the sentimental aspect of the consumer, there is one thing that would interest the consumer very much indeed, and that is that the standard of labour, the hours worked, the rate of wages—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is as I feared. The House is debating the Third Reading of the Bill, rather than the Clause. I think we had better keep these arguments to a later stage.
§ Mr. BARNESI do not desire to stray from the Clause, and if that line of argument be out of order I will reserve it until the Third Reading Debate, if I get the chance. May I turn to the question of the entrepot trade of this country. I represent one of the riverside constituencies in East London, and this is a matter of considerable importance to us. Take the Port of London to-day. Any legislation that tends to interfere with the quick handling of commodities, particularly in the Port of London where we have a natural congestion of road traffic because of the way the Port of London has developed with a vast population around it, is a matter of very 119 serious consideration for traders. This Clause, in view of the way it has been altered in Committee—55 new lines have been added to the Clause and all merchandise has been brought in under Amendments which were carried up-stairs—does introduce a great deal of difficulty.
Let me quote one or two instances to show how impossible it is to work legislation of this character. Take musical instruments, which are already covered by the McKenna Duties. They represent a series of difficulties. Last year musical instruments of the value of £1,184,000 were imported. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] It may be a shame, but, if hon. Members opposite desire to deal with the importation of foreign goods, let us deal with that subject properly, not on a Bill the ostensible purpose of which is to protect the customer. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman did not argue that the Bill had any protective purpose at all. Of the musical instruments which were imported into this country last year, over £90,000 worth were subsequently re-exported. The merchants in this country who purchase these goods cannot possibly distinguish what instruments will be re-exported. As a matter of fact, if these instruments are to be marked, as they will be in future, it will lead to this development, that the merchants abroad who buy from our importers will know the origin of the goods, because it has to be disclosed, and they then may prefer to go to the direct market rather than to the secondary market. The circular trade of this country, which has largely built up the mercantile fleet of this island, will he interfered with.
The manufactured article represents a small trade in bulk, but a valuable trade in figures, whereas food imports represent a large bulk of comparatively small value. But a good deal of the food supplies of this country depends on our merchant ships having a valuable cargo of manufactured goods both on the inward and outward journeys. I claim to speak on behalf of the consumers, and I say that this Bill is not in the interests of the consumers but of manufacturers entirely. There is another point, and it is an indication what little consideration has been given to the drafting of the Bill. It was pointed out in Committee how difficult it was to 120 mark certain goods, certain parts of machines and machinery, when they came into this country. The President of the Board of Trade sought to get out of that difficulty by passing a, new Sub-section dealing with this category of goods, but after further investigation he has now to admit that the marking of certain goods by a colour mark is impracticable. That is an indication of the sort of difficulty that will develop. If this Bill is going to be effective, it means that there must be not only a multitude of committees—
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but the Sub-section to which he refers was always in the Bill. When the Committee gave a general discretion to mark on importation it became unnecessary, and that is the reason why it was left out.
§ Mr. BARNESThe point I was coming to is the establishment of these committees and the problem of inspection. If general merchandise is now to be subject to the provisions of this Bill, it will mean a multitude of committees at the Board of Trade. A new and dangerous practice is developing in the legislation of this country. So far we have been governed by our representative institutions, but in recent legislation, and particularly in this Bill, we seem to be moving towards government by committees. I do not wish to argue that a committee has not a distinct place in our representative institutions. Obviously, Parliament, or any other council, cannot go into all matters of detail, but to establish in a Government Department a multitude of committees, which are to he paid, and which are to be nominated by the President of the Board of Trade or by the Minister of. Agriculture, who only represent a certain passing political and economic point of view, is a very dangerous practice indeed. If ultimately these committees have power over a large quantity and range of goods, how is the Act going to be supervised? We shall want a multitude of new inspectors; otherwise, the Bill is going to become a dead-letter. And there is nothing worse than for Parliament to pass Acts which it is unable to enforce. Many trades and industries come under this Bill, and it will be impossible for any local authority with its present staff to supervise it effectively.
§ Question put, "That the word 'After' stand part of the Bill."
122§ The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 82.
123| Division No. 470.] | AYES. | [7.25 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Albery, Irving James | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Foxcroft, Captain C, T. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Apsley, Lord | Ganzoni, Sir John | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Gates, Percy | Perring, Sir William George |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Philipson, Mabel |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Goff. Sir Park | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Baldwin, Art. Hon. Stanley | Gower, Sir Robert | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Grace, John | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Balniel, Lord | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumbid., N.) | Radford, E. A. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Raine, W. |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Ramsden, E. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hackinq, Captain Douglas H. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Berry, Sir George | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Remer, J. R. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Harrison, G. J, C. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hartington, Marquess of | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Haslam, Henry C. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hawke, John Anthony | Richardson, Sir P. W, (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brass. Captain W. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M, | Ropner, Major L. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford. Watford) | Sandon, Lord |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Herbert, S. (York, N. R.,scar-& Wn'by) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hills, Major John Waller | Savery, S. S. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Burman, J. B. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Skelton, A. N. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Hope. Sir Harry (Forfar) | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Cautley, sir Henry S. | Hiffe, Sir Edward M. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Horbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Jephcott, A. R. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Kennedy, A, R. (Preston) | Stuart, Crichton- Lord C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) | Kidd. J. (Linlithgow) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser- |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J, | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Sugden, sir Wilfrid |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | King. Captain Henry Douglas | Templeton, W. P. |
| Clarry, Renlnald George | Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Clayton, G. C. | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | L'oyd Cyril E. (Dudley) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Loder, J. de V. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) | Looker. Herbert William | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Waddington, R, |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere | Warner, Brigadier-General W, W. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Wells, S. R. |
| Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil) | McLean. Major A. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Macquisten, F. A. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Dawson, Sir Phillip | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Drewe, C. | Malone, Major P. B. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Margesson, Captain D. | Withers, John James |
| Edmondson. Major A. J. | Marriott, Sir I. A. R. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Meller. R. J. | Wood. B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Meyer. Sir Frank | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Eiveden, Viscount | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Mitchofl, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Erskine, James Malcolm Montefth | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Evans. Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Murchison, C. K. | |
| Fielden, E. B. | Neville. R J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scurr, John |
| Barnes, A | Hayday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barr, J. | Hayes, John Henry | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hirst, G. H. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness) |
| Briant, Frank | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kelly, W. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thomson, Treveiyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | lee, F. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davison, J. C. (Smethwick) | Lowth, T. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lunn, William | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C | Montague, Frederick | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Naylor, T. E. | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Oliver, George Harold | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gosling, Harry | Owen, Major G. | |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Mr, T. Henderson and Mr. B. Smith. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purceil, A. A. |
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the word "public."
This Amendment should be read in conjunction with one standing in my name on page 3, line 2—at the end to insert the words
The sitting of a Committee shall, while evidence is being taken, he open to the public unless the evidence relates to matters which are, in the opinion of the Committee, of a confidential character.
Mr. MORRISONCan the right hon. Gentleman give some information as to the kind of evidence he has in mind, which it would not be desirable to make public?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat matter can be raised on the subsequent Amendment already referred to, which is a substantial Amendment.
§ Mr. BARNESWe do not desire this matter to be passed so easily. We had a long debate on the point in Committee, and the President of the Board of Trade has not submitted any reasons why we should go back on the decision reached by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. As far as I can see, the whole discretion now as to what is confidential information, and what should be disclosed to the public, is left to these Committees. Later on, when we discuss another Amendment dealing with the "appropriate Department," 124 very strong arguments can be advanced that the appropriate Department might be a very biased Department. These committees will be paid committees, and, from our experience under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, we know that information which came From those committees to the House was insufficient and called for a good deal of opposition and complaint from various quarters in the House. Moreover, very substantial interests in the country which are affected by legislation of that description were able to produce evidence that they had not sufficient opportunity to present their case. As this government by committee is creating a very serious problem, particularly under this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade ought to submit more cogent reasons for this departure from the proposal of the Clause as it left the Committee. What kind of information can come before a committee under the Bill that could be claimed to be of a confidential character?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTEROn a point of Order. That is exactly the question which I understand you ruled out of order just now, Sir, and said was to be answered on the next Amendment.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe lion. Member has perhaps overlooked the Amendment near the top of the next page, to which reference was made by the President of the Board of Trade. That seems to be a 125 better place to raise the point. The hon. Gentleman can move Amendments to that Amendment if he likes.
§ Mr. BARNESI understand that the Amendment under discussion is to delete the word "public."
§ Mr. SPEAKERWith a view to reinserting it a little later.
§ Mr. BARNESBut if we delete it here, can we go over the same ground again in re-inserting it? I thought the whole question would be debated best on the deletion of the word "public," which represents the Clause as it left the Standing Committee.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think so, because the later Amendment gives a wider opportunity of discussing the question whether evidence of a confidential character should be heard in secret. I think the hon. Member would have a better chance later.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNMay I suggest that the word "public," if left in here, makes the whole inquiry public, whereas if we rely on the later Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade intends to move, publicity applies only, in the first place, to the time when the evidence is being taken, and, in the second place, to publicity when it is considered desirable in view of members of the Committee. Therefore, I suggest that it is on the present word "public" that debate should turn, as to whether the inquiries are to be public affairs from beginning to end, or whether they are to be confidential in parts, according to the Minister's suggestion.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not mind which way it is taken, but I think I am furthering the interests of hon. Members in taking the discussion on the later Amendment.
§ Captain BENNAmendments may be moved to that later Amendment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERCertainly. Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "appropriate Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "Board of Trade."
It may come as a surprise to the President of the Board of Trade that I have 126 such an affection for his Department, I can assure him that I have no particular bias in his favour, or animosity against his right hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture. On the contrary, I have always found the President of the Board of Agriculture a most conciliatory and ideal Minister presiding over his particular Department. But there is here a question of principle which is of vast importance to consumers in this country. The 141inistry of Agriculture exists specifically to look after the producers of food and to promote their interests, and his bias would be, not in the interest of consumers, nor of trade, but in the interest of the farmers and the cultivators of the soil, and those who desire to get as little competition and as high a price for their produce as possible, and to sell in as Protective a market as they can reasonably expect the country to give them. I maintain that the right Department to look after consumers and trade is the Board of Trade. The Food Ministry origiNally sprang out of the Board of Trade, and when it was wound up it went back to the Board of Trade.
It is the Board of Trade which by constitution and tradition is the proper Department to look after the trade of the country, to take a wide outlook in relation to the interests of the community as a whole, and not only to consider the farmers. If the Prime Minister is committed to anything, it is that he will do nothing to add to the cost of food. There may be differences of opinion about the advisability of safeguarding industries or adding to the cost of articles of manufacture, but I understand that the party opposite is pledged, at any rate during this Parliament, to add nothing to the cost of food. Therefore, the Ministry of Agriculture should not be given this powerful instrument for protecting the British farmer by imposing on exporters to this country regulations and restrictions that must sooner or later add to the cost of an article when it reaches this country. I know that the President of the Board of Trade is very sensitive about Resolutions of trading organisations. He made great play with the fact that, although I was able to produce a Resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce, yet he was able in return to produce a Resolution of the Federation of British Industries. I have 127 no doubt that he will be able to produce Resolutions of the Farmers' Unions in various parts of the country. They would like to be free from competition. They would like to see stamped eggs and butter, marked meat, discoloured bacon, and fruit and vegetables with indications of the country of origin. That would make the foreign article much less attractive and more expensive, and by that means the farmer would get a measure of protection.
The Board of Trade on the other hand could point to Resolutions from various traders who import these things from abroad—the fruit industry; Covent Garden, which is not to be despised; the great export trade in fruit and vegetables. It should be the Board of Trade s duty to look after these representations. The matter would not be safe in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, however benevolent he might be. Our imports of food are not sold only in this country. Owing to our free trade, and the fact that our ports have been open, all the fruits of America and the Continent have poured into London to be sent all over Europe, as well as over this country. If, on the other hand, we enforce the restrictive regulations in this Bill, I am assured by the trades concerned that much of this business will be diverted from London to Antwerp and Cherbourg and other Continental ports. We have not the advantage of being on the mainland, but in the past, despite that fact, goods poured into this country and were distributed from Mincing Lane and the markets all round the port of London. I am afraid if the interests of traders in produce are placed at the tender mercies of the Minister of Agriculture they will not be looked after, because that Minister's duty and responsibility will be to look after, not the traders nor the consumers, but the agricultural interests. I think it only fair to the Minister of Agriculture himself that he should be relieved of a responsibility which is not properly his.
Mr. MORRISONI beg to second the Amendment.
To those of us who were not privileged to be on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, the discussion so far has been an eye-opener. The Government have abandoned all pretence that this Bill is 128 for the object of preventing misrepresentation and fraud on the consumer. It becomes obvious that the object of the Bill is quite different. I find that during the Debates in the Committee the Minister of Agriculture himself made a speech which showed that, whatever might be the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Agriculture knew the real object of the Bill. Speaking in the Committee on 6th July in reference to an Amendment to exclude eggs from the provisions of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If we were to accept this Amendment I think we should destroy the whole utility of this. Bill in the case of eggs. They must be marked before importation … if the home producer is to be assisted at all effectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B., 6th July, 1926; col. 322.][HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members applaud that passage. I am glad they have thrown off any mask of pretence as to the real purpose of the Bill. This is evidently a Bill to assist the home producer. Yet we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that it was a. Bill to prevent fraud and misrepresentation in the interests of the consumer. It is a remarkable thing that no organised body of consumers has made any representations in favour of the Bill, and the Co-operative organisation, representing 5,000,000 people, by far the largest, if not the only organised body of consumers in the country, is opposing it. That is why we are anxious that the Board of Trade should deal with these matters rather than tile Ministry of Agriculture, which has experience of the import or export trades in foodstuffs or anything else.
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)The idea behind this Amendment seems to be that there is an antagonism between producers and consumers in this country on the matter with which the Bill deals. That is not a well-founded idea. Admittedly we are thinking chiefly of the producer. It is in his interest that we believe that the consumer should be allowed to know whether he is buying foreign goods or British goods; but we do not think that is in any way contrary to the convenience or interest of the consumer. We certainly are not bringing this Measure forward as a method of Protection. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. 129 Harris) argued as though my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade were a Free Trader and could be trusted to see that nothing Protectionist was done; whereas I should be tempted into the dangerous paths of Protection. I do not think we need pursue arguments of that kind in regard to the perfectly simple question as to which Department is best qualified to deal with the setting up of committees and the making of orders dealing with particular classes of goods. We believe that smooth working will best be secured if these duties are committed to the Departments which are in touch with the producers concerned.
It was made clear in Committee by speakers for the agricultural interest that they were very anxious that the Ministry of Agriculture should be charged with the administration arid machinery of this Bill in matters affecting the home producer of foodstuffs. It is not because the Board of Trade is inaccessible that they desire this arrangement, but it is obviously easier for agriculturists to have their case dealt with by a Department with which they are continually in touch, instead of going to the Board of Trade with which in the ordinary way they have very little connection. We believe that in the detailed administration of this Bill it will be an advantage to have departments responsible who are aware of the advantages and the difficulties of a particular proposal and we have made provision for due elasticity in Clause 9, Subsection (1), which enables border-line cases to be transferred to the Board of Trade. If, after consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and my right hon. Friends who represent the agriculturists in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, it is decided that the importation of an article such as tea is more within the purview of the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade will be advised that for the purposes of this definition, tea or any other product shall go to a committee which is not primarily concerned with foodstuffs. But I think it is obvious that it will be fairly easy to draw a line between the various classes of goods. Manufactured articles and articles in respect of which there is no corresponding home production are best dealt with by the Department which is concerned with our international trade. But perishable goods will undoubtedly produce analogous problems, and it is much better that they 130 should be dealt with by one Department and by one committee. In this way we shall not only get efficient administration, but we shall secure uniformity in the recommendations of the Commitee and in the decisions based upon those recommendations.
§ Mr. BARNESI do not think the fiscal views of the Ministers concerned represent our immediate anxiety. It is a question of the experience and the functions of the two Departments. The Minister of Agriculture tried to suggest that no difficulty was involved as regards the interests of the producer and consumer, but as a matter of fact there can be considerable difference between those interests. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point in reference to perishable goods. In the case of fruit the producer in this country has a definite interest, say, in the non-marketing of a spoiling crop of cherries from the Continent. In such a case the interests of the consumer and the British producer are antagonistic. It is to the interest of the consumer that any large importation of cherries should be brought. on to the market and should lie available, because it would have the effect of bringing down prices, whereas it is to the interest of the British fruit grower that any large importations of foreign fruit should not find its way easily and readily and in a fresh condition on to the British market. Therefore that argument of the right hon. Gentleman will not stand investigation.
But we want to view this matter in a wider aspect. This Bill represents a serious and fundamental change in the trade of this country. The Board of Trade has always been responsible for supervising our international trade whether in food or general merchandise. As the Department responsible for all import and export trade it has had a large experience of the factors which influence, for good or bad, each particular trade. Its officers are acquainted with the interests involved. They are in touch with the experts of the different industries and the people who could serve on committees of this description are better known to the Board of Trade than to the Ministry of Agriculture. That Department is confined in its administrative experience largely, if not entirely, to British agriculture. We know that agriculture in this country is essentially 131 Protectionist in its outlook. One does not quarrel with its purpose and intention in this respect, but we have larger interests to watch. We all desire to develop British agriculture as far as we can, but I do not think we can allow this interest to intrude on the larger problem of international trade. When Protection is advocated in this sectional sense the tendency is to take a narrow view and one could not expect the British farmer, whose influence finds its way to the Ministry of Agriculture, to be primarily concerned with the Dominion or foreign producer.
The British agriculturist is entitled to be primarily interested in the producers of this country, but when we come to the consumpton of the goods we must have regard to the larger question of our export trades, whose manufacturing costs depend so largely on the importation of 75 per cent. of our food supplies from abroad. There an entirely new issue develops. Parliament has found by practical experience that it is to the interest of all sections of the community that the Board of Trade, which is not subject to any sectional pressure in this country, should be responsible for this kind of administration. It will be introducing a dangerous factor if we hand over to the Ministry of Agriculture the appointment of committees dealing with food supplies.
8.0 P.M.
I want to illustrate it by just one recent experience. Many years ago in this country we had, mainly in the agricultural interest, an embargo put on the importation of Canadian cattle. It has taken something like 30 years of general agitation in the community before it has been possible to get that embargo removed. In food supplies there are always passing difficulties. We have had an instance recently in regard to imported cherries. There are always passing difficulties in regard to which one could bring forward a reasonable case for the importation of this commodity or that commodity, and if the Minister of Agriculture is to have the right of supervising these committees one can easily understand that they will become a new weapon of power in the hands of his Department, and that this Bill will be, from the point of view of its general purpose, misapplied. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Agri- 132 culture, in view of the large interests involved, will not proceed with this, but will ease the mind of large numbers of the traders in this country by allowing the previous practice, of the Board of Trade being the appropriate Department, to continue.
§ Major CRAWFURDI think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Guinness), which was an answer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), does deserve a specific answer from these benches. Personally, I think it was valuable by reason of the omissions which the right hon. Gentleman made. It has been the great difficulty of Members on this side of the House, during the course of the various discussions on the variety of protective measures brought in by the Government, to nail the Government spokesmen down to a particular point, and I think the House ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because, in the course of his remarks, he came nearer to complete candour than any other Member of the Government has done since this Parliament began. We all know that he, at any rate, is thinking primarily of the producer. Although nobody wishes to use the word misrepresentation in regard to any statement of the right hon. Gentleman's, perhaps I may say that his rather genial method of disposing of one of my hon. Friend's arguments was a little misleading. It was not hat my hon. Friend was suspecting the President of the Board of Trade of Free Trade tendencies —nobody would do that—but he was merely saying that, despite the personal attributes of the right hon. Gentleman, even as compared with his colleagues, it was not a matter of personality but of principle. The right hon. Gentleman himself brought forward that principle in a statement of his own. He said, if I remember his words rightly, that my hon. Friend seemed to think that there was a conflict of interests between the producer and the consumer in these matters, and he, on the other hand, by implication suggested that the interests of the producer and the consumer were really one. I think that, despite the instances that have been cited, most people will be disposed to agree with him.
The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that the whole 133 course of legislation in this country, from the year 1842 to the year 1865, which covered the great Free Trade period, was based on the principle that if the consumers were prosperous and the food supplies of the world were open to them, then the producers too would be prosperous. The argument we are advancing by this specific Amendment is simply that if you are going to have a committee of this kind of Department which, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, is largely thinking principally of producers, then their interests will be considered largely and it will be a partial affection. It is not that the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the president of the Board of Trade is one to whom we would hand over the interests of the consumers alone, but it is
§ that the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman's colleague presides is by its nature—I will not say under its present rule—certain to regard the interests of the consumer. It is the only Department capable of bring made the guardian of the consumers' interest, and it is because we think that that Department is the only one capable, of being suede the guardian of the consumers' interest, and because we think that the Ministry of Agriculture can by its nature only have a partial affection for the consumer, that we consider the Amendment is justified.
§ Question put, "That the words appropriate Department ' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 208: Noes, 82.
135| Division No. 471.] | AYES. | [8.8 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Drewe, c | [...]ephcott A. R. |
| Albery, Irving James | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) |
| Apsley, Lord | Ellis, R. G. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. |
| Ashley, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | King Captain Henry Douglas |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Everard, W. Lindsay | Little, Dr. E. Graham |
| Balniel, Lord | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Berry, Sir George | [...]deg[...], F., B. | Looker, Herbert William |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Lord, Walter Greaves- |
| Birchall, Major J, Dearman | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Blundell F. N. | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen |
| Brass, Captain W. | Frece, Sir Walter de | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Ganzoni, Sir John | McLean, Major A |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Gates, Percy | Macmillan, Captain H. |
| Brown, Brig Gen. H. c. (Berks, Newb'y) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McNeill, Rt. Hon, Ronald John |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Burman, J. B. | Goff, Sir Park | MacRobert, Alexander M |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Gower, Sir Robert | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- |
| Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward | Grace, John | Malone, Major P. B. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Greene, W. p. Crawford | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Meller, R. J. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City) | Gunston, Captain D. W | Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, W. Foof (Saffron Walden) |
| Cazalet Captain Victor A. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hartington, Marquess of | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.) | Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Haslam, Henry c. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hawke, John Anthony | Murchlson, C. K. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Newille, R. J. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Heneane, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Nuttall, Ellis |
| Cope, Major William | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Herbert, S. (York. N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Penny, Frederick George |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Hills, Major John Waller | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Hogn, Rt. Hon Sir D (St Marylebone) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Perring, Sir William George |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Daldel, Sir Davison | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Hudson, R, s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | [...] Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Radford, E. A. |
| Davies. Dr. Vernon | Hurd, Percy A. | Raine, W. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hurst, Gerald B. | Ramsden, E. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Remer, J. R, |
| Remnant, Sir James | Storry-Deans, R. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Rice, Sir Frederick | Streatfield, Captain S. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Ropner, Major L. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Rye, F. G. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Templeton, w. P. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Sandeman, A. Stewart | Thorn, Lt-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) | Withers, John James |
| Sandon, Lord | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Savery, S. S. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- | Wood, E (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Tinne, J. A. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Skelton, A. N. | Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough | Wragg, Herbert |
| Smith, R. w.{Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T, |
| Smithers, Waldron | Waddington, R. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Warrender, Sir Victor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) | Watson, Rt. Han. W. (Carlisle) | Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Bowyer. |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Watts, Dr. T. | |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) | Wells, S. n. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilson) | Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W. R.,Eiland) |
| Baker, Walter | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scurr, John |
| Barr, J. | Heyday, Arthur | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayes, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hirst, G. H. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Stamford, T. W. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Kelly, W. T. | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kennedy, T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton. E.) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lansbury, George | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lawrence, Susan | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lee, F. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dennison, R. | Lowth, T. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Duncan, C. | Lunn, William | Whiteley, W. |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | March S. | Williams, c. P. Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Montague, Frederick | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Naylor, T. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gosling, Harry | Oliver, George Harold | |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Palin, John Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Paling, W. | Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. |
§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after the word "them," to insert the words "that the interests of the users or consumers of such goods or."
I move this Amendment with very good reason. We have been so long talking about these trade matters that we have begun to think that we have to legislate only for the manufacturers, producers, traders, merchants, and so forth, quite ignoring the real purpose of legislation, which should be to bring better food and better articles into the homes of everyone. In drafting Bills of this character, it is up to us to keep before the House all the needs and interests of the people; if the Bill he a good one they ought to get an advantage, whereas, on the other hand, if it be—as we believe—a bad one, they will suffer. It. is the public, ultimately, who always pay. The manufacturer gets relief from competi- 136 tion and the advantage of higher prices. The merchant has n closed market, and he can pass on to the consumer the higher prices. He may sell fewer articles, but, owing to the increased prices, his trade returns do not suffer. In all these inquiries in committees, the public seems nearly always to be ignored. The poor, ordinary, general public cannot organise itself. The housewife, the working woman, who has, in any case, to pay higher, can grumble at her shopkeeper or complain to her husband that the money he hands over do's not go so far as before, but it is very difficult for her to bring pressure through any organisation or trade machinery on the committee of inquiry, the Board of Trade, or the appropriate Department which is dealing with these matters. For that reason, some words of this character are essential.
137 There is another side to be considered, for which I have provided in my Amendment. That is the interests of the users of various articles that are likely to be marked and branded under this Clause. Trade is very complex. We may very innocently require that some articles should be branded in order to assist home industry and, at the same time, perhaps do untold injury to the person who uses that article. I am told—I do not know how far it is correct—that the plate-glass manufacturers of England are very anxious to be freed from the competition of window-glass manufacturers in Belgium. It is clear that under the Bill the building trade will be justified in claiming to be heard; they are users of glass, which is an important raw product in their work. Another article likely to be affected is leather. The leather manufacturers in many parts of the country have always been very vocal in claiming freedom from competition and in saying how unfair it is that American, German and Austrian leather, and the various leathers manufacturered on the Continent, should pour into this country unbranded and undistinguishable from the British article, and should interfere with the tanners in Birmingham and the leather manufacturers in other parts of the country. On the other hand, how far are the users of leather, the boot manufacturers and the hundred-and-one trades that use leather, to have a right to go before the committee and make representations? Therefore, some widening of the words are necessary and those that I propose are most appropriate. They will, on the one hand, protect the consumer and, on the other, protect the user. One cannot be too precise in the language of an Act of Parliament. It is not the business of committees to know what is in the minds of either the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary. The working of those gentle- men's minds is mysterious; even hon. Members who work on the committees do not know what is at the back of their minds. We want words in the Bill to be so clear that he who runs may read, and the committees should be able to know exactly what the House of Commons intended.
§ Major OWENI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKIf my mind is as obscure in regard to the workings of the mind of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, as his is in regard to mine, then I have some sympathy with him. He wishes to introduce the expression, "users or consumers." I wish to impress on him that the whole basis of this Bill is to benefit the user and the consumer. We should remember that this Bill, in the main, is directed towards enlightening the men and women in the street who buy their goods across the counter in the shop, so that they may know and may have an opportunity of exercising their choice as to whether they will buy Empire or foreign goods. Therefore, to speak about the interests of the consumer being neglected or overlooked is to misdescribe the whole motive of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of various aspects of trade and of the neglect of the housewife. I suppose he would say that the housewife would not have any opportunity of stating her case before a committee dealing with one of these subjects in which she, as a consumer, is interested. That is perfectly untrue. If the Society of East Ham Housewives—if there be such—a society—[An HON. MEMBER: "We will make one for you."]—or any other body of housewives or consumers in the country chooses to come and state their case before the committee, they will be patiently heard. They will have an opportunity of stating their case with other people who are particularly interested in the matter under consideration.
§ Mr. HARRISAre there any words in the Bill providing that mothers or housewives' organisations should be heard? Are there any words under which they can claim a right to be heard?
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThe Bill provides that before inquiries are made, representatives shall be heard from those substantially interested in the matter under discussion. Questions such as those of plate glass, leather and so forth, come within the various opportunities that are given for examination. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIt becomes increasingly clear, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that, taking a line through the speeches we have heard 139 from the Minister of Agriculture and the President of the Board of Trade, this Bill, which is introduced ostensibly to protect the consumer, is leaving him out of the question entirely and that his interests seem to be the last to be considered. Take the question we are considering at the moment. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that to speak of the Bill as being in favour of the producer and not of the consumer was to misdescribe it. This Clause raises the whole question of price; it is bound to come in. It may be assumed that as regards the fruit trade, for instance, the average English wife in buying cherries or strawberries is not very concerned to know whether they are English or foreign. I do not suppose she cares a curse whether they are English or foreign. What she wants is fresh cherries, and she wants them at the cheapest possible price. If they are going to be delayed at the ports, prices are bound to be raised.
I understand there is a kind of disease which affects cherries. I believe that after a time cherries go what is called "sleepy." It is said that at the present time 2 lbs. out of 12 lbs. of cherries will become unfit for sale through delay in
§ the sale, and the longer they are kept at the port through delays in marking, the more the cherries will deteriorate, and the higher the price is bound to be, both for the imported and the home cherries. I am informed that in one month alone there came into the port of Hull as many as 769,000 packages of fruit, and 203,000 packages of vegetables, and the London, Southampton and Liverpool trade was probably greater. When it is remembered that you may get a rush of 150,000 packages at various ports, it is obvious that any delay in the marking of goods of this description is hound to have an effect upon their quality and more fruit is bound to go wrong, and the more that becomes unfit, the higher the price is bound to be, because the wholesaler will cover himself, and the retailer will cover himself. Delays of this description, therefore, are bound to raise the price to the consumer, and I beg to support the inclusion of these words, which would give the consumer the protection he needs under the Bill.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 205.
141| Division No. 472.] | AYES. | 8.30 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. |
| Baker, J (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Baker, Walter | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr Alfred |
| Barnes, A. | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barr, J. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scurr, John |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayday, Arthu[...] | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bromley, J. | Haves, John Henry | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hirst, G. H. | Stamford, X W. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Kelly, W. T. | Thomson, Trevelvan (Middleshro. W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Kennedy, T. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lansbury, George | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lawrence, Susan | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davison, J E. (Smethwick) | Lee, F. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondd[...]) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lowth, T. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | Lunn, William | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C. | March, S. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Montaque, Frederick | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| England, Colonel A. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Windsor, Walter |
| Gardner, J. P. | Naylor, T E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | |
| Gillett. George M. | Palin, John Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen. |
| Greenall, D, R. (Glamorgan) | ponsonby, Arthur | |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft |
| Albery, Irving James | Bennett, A. J. | Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. |
| Apofin, Colonel R. V. K. | Berry, Sir George | Brass, Captain W. |
| Apsley, Lord | Betterton, Henry B. | Briggs, J. Harold |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Brittain, Sir Harry |
| Balniel, Lord | Blundell, F. N. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Haslam, Henry C. | Radford, E. A. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hawke, John Anthony | Raine, W. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Ramsden, E. |
| Burman, J. B. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hencage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Remer, J. R. |
| Cadoqan, Major Hon. Edward | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Campbell, E. T. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Herbert, S.(York.N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by} | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hills, Major John Waller | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Rye, F. G. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N) | Sandon, Lord |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Savery, S. S. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Shaw, R. G. (yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hurd, Percy A. | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cope, Major William | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.'C.) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.) | Jephcott, A. R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Dalkeith. Earl of | King. Captain Henry Douglas | Storry- Deans, R. |
| Daiziel, Sir Davison | Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Davies, sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Loder, J. de V. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Looker, Herbert William | Suqden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Templeton, W. P. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Drews, C. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J, | Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catncart) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Elveden, Viscount | McLean, Major A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Macmillan, Captain H. | Waddington, R. |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | McNeill, Rt. Hon, Ronald John | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Macquisten, F. A. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Falle, sir Bertram G. | Malone, Major P. B. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Margesson, Capt. D. | Wells, S. R. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Meller, R. J. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Meyer, Sir Frank | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Frece, sir Waiter de | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Gates, Percy | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Withers, John James |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Murchison, C. K. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Neville, R. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Goff, Sir Park | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Grace, John | Nuttall, Ellis | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Han. Sir L. |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Penny, Frederick George | Wragg, Herbert |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Perkins, Colonel E, K. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Perring, Sir William George | |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Peto, Basil E. [Devon, Barnstaple) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Lord Stanley. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Price, Major C. W. M. |
§ Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 41, after the word "Majesty" to insert the words "in Council."—[Sir B. Chadwick.]
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThis is purely a drafting Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKI beg to move, in page 3, line 2, at the end, to insert the words 142
(2) The sitting of a Committee shall while evidence is being taken he open to the public unless the evidence relates to matters which are, in the opinion of the Committee, of a confidential character.This Amendment will give the Committee the necessary opportunity of sitting in private when the character of the evidence is regarded as confidential. In accepting in Committee an Amendment to include the word "public" in this Clause the President of the Board of Trade said:I ought to explain that I propose to accept it subject to the important point 143 that on report we may wish to put in words to show that confidential information shall not be disclosed.This Amendment is to carry out that undertaking.
Mr. MORRISONI beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from the word "public" to the end of the proposed Amendment.
The effect of my Amendment will be that when evidence is being taken the sittings of a Committee shall be open to the public. I move this Amendment because I feel, as we proceed further and further with the consideration of this Bill, that it becomes increasingly evident that the public ought to have every opportunity of understanding what this legislation is about. When we started this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade announced that this was a consumers' Bill. He had previously stated that its only object was to prevent consumers being imposed upon by misrepresentations about goods. Then his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, butting briefly into the discussion about an hour ago, announced that the object of the Measure, so far as he was concerned, was to protect the home producer. Then, a few minutes ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, in the temporary absence of his chief, claimed that it was an Education Bill, saying its real object was to educate the people of this country. Perhaps I may be more dense than the average Member, but may I be pardoned for saying there is some little excuse for us if we feel rather uncertain as to what the real object is? After having solemnly assured us that this was an Education Bill to educate the people of this country, why does the Parliamentary Secretary propose that the public should not be admitted to these inquiries? If these inquiries are not to be open to the public, it is a curious way of attempting to educate the people.
But, seriously, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some indication of the kind of evidence which it is expected will be regarded as confidential? This is not a question of prices, or of putting figures or costs before a Committee. We have been told specifically that it is a Bill to prevent misrepresenta- 144 tion and fraud by traders. What confidential information does the Parliamentary Secretary erect the Committee will have before them which will make it necessary for them to decide in advance to keep out the public? Is this precaution being taken in case something may be submitted, or has he got anything in his mind at the present time? We are in some confusion on these benches regarding the Bill, because as yet nobody on the Government side, except from the Treasury Bench, has risen to defend the Bill.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI beg to second the Amendment.
What the Amendment submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary really means is that the inquiry shall be public until it becomes extremely interesting, at which point the committee will sit in private. As long as the evidence is not of a particularly sensational or interesting kind, it can be given in public, hut as soon as it touches the interest of somebody or other the committee are to have the opportunity of sitting in private. That is an exceedingly bad plan. All the important decisions under this Bill are to be made by committees. Nothing in the Bill is operative except by the good will of the committee. The Bill deals with a multitude of interests, interlocking interests, and in some cases competing interests; and we are dealing also with an interest which has not yet been sufficiently referred to— the interest of the consumer. These committees are to do everything. To them will be delegated the power which Parliament has given to the Minister. It is the committees, and not this House, who will decide which article is to be marked, how it is to be marked, whether it is to be prohibited, or whether it is to he coloured so as to make it distasteful to the public. Those are great powers to give to a committee of private persons, and it becomes almost intolerable if any of the evidence is to be excluded from the public proceedings of the committee.
I cannot imagine why these Committees should be treated more tenderly than a Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission were doing this work it would, by custom, sit in public, and in a case where we are dealing with a multitude of interests, and where a rule made in favour of one person may damage 145 hundreds of others, it is grossly unfair that the persons interested should not have the opportunity of hearing the evidence. I am certain this provision will lead to more discontent amongst large classes of traders than almost all the rest of the Bill. We have seen already how oil this question of marking the interests of the manufacturer, the retailer, the wholesaler and the merchant are by no means Colnciding interests. The Clause proposes to put the burden of marking on to another section of the trade. Suppose these points are taken before the Committee. Suppose an article is to be marked and the point of interest is whether the retailer or the merchant should be responsible. Imagine how much the discontent will be increased if the merchant scores a point at the expense of the retailer, and the evidence on which that course has been taken is not placed before the parties concerned. Is it not the case that even by this Act you may benefit the manufacturer at the expense of the consumer? Is it not also the case that you may benefit the retailer at the expense of the wholesaler? On technical questions of this character, where profits are concerned, it seems quite absurd to condemn certain sections of the trade without letting them know the reason why. I feel sure that the Department concerned will wish before the. Act has been in force two or three years that they had let this question alone. I think that is inevitable. The sense of rankling grievance which will arise through having your case judged in private without you being able to submit evidence will enormously aggravate the wrongs which will be clone by this Bill.
§ Mr. GILLETTI should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what sort of secrets it is considered should be considered in private. If information were being given about the private profits of certain firms, one could see some reason for having the Committee sitting in private, although in the past even those sittings have not been quite satisfactory. When I look at this proposal I cannot think of anything like that because it cannot he a question of divulging secrets about profits. If it is a case where is is thought the marks are not genuine, surely the Minister does not want to hide the fact that the marks are not genuine, or that you are putting on Dominion marks 146 when the real mark should he some country on the Continent. I cannot see why the Minister should wish to make anything of that kind private. It is absolutely impossible for me to think of anything that really needs to be discussed in private in regard to this matter, and the Minister has not risen in order to enlighten us in any way in regard to the proposals which are now before the House. I think we should be given some idea of what is going to be considered in private. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has no idea of what can be considered in private in regard to these matters, and if that is so then we shall have to conclude that the Minister knows no more than we do upon this question.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThe hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he cannot imagine any kind of circumstances which would justify a confidential sitting of one of these committees, and after making that statement he immediately went on to give an excellent example of trade secrets. Obviously there are matters in connection with trade which it might he injurious to divulge before a Committee in a public manner. This provision has been applied to other committees in the past, and we have an excellent precedent in regard to those Committees under the Safeguarding of Industries White Paper which are conferring such an inestimable benefit on the country.
§ Mr. BARNESI do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands the purpose of this Amendment, and he has certainly misunderstood the purport of the speeches which have been made on this question. I should certainly like to draw attention to the fact that we had a long debate in Committee on this matter and the arguments in favour of publicity were overwhelming. Now we are faced with proposals which place the whole question in the hands of these committees as to when they shall sit in public and when they shall sit in private. It is desirable that hon. Members should recollect, the purpose of this Bill. We are not dealing with trade secrets on the terms of contracts. We are not dealing with the purchase price of commodities in regard to the merchants of this country or elsewhere. We are merely deciding whether it is in the interests of trade and the consumers of this country that certain articles should be marked, how I hey shall 147 be marked, and when they shall be marked. It is merely a matter of public judgment as to whether this knowledge that will be given to the consumer will be outweighed by the interference which may take place wits regard to the trade. Therefore I think we can argue quite reasonably that there is no matter which will come within the purview of these committees which can be regarded as confidential, or should be treated privately instead of being considered in the ordinary way.
When you come to safeguarding and matters of that kind, you require an investigation as to the working cost, but here there is no question of the working cost. It is not the cost of the article that the Committee will have to investigate, but simply whether it is desirable in the public interest that a certain article should be marked or not. The question of price arises ultimately, but no firm, under this proposal, will be called upon to disclose its working cost, the design, or anything of that kind. Therefore, we feel that the arguments which prevailed upstairs are equally effective on this occasion. I think it will be entirely wrong that matters of this kind should be relegated to committees who are paid, in which I have no confidence at all. In regard to committees and commissions appointed representing various interests concerned and consisting of persons of public
§ standing in matters where public reputations are at stake, bodies which can look at things from a wide, impartial standpoint, the public and trading interests have some measure of security; but when you have a Department which has the right to nominate paid committees with the power to introduce a procedure which is fundamentally wrong, the case is quite different. To allow these paid nominces, with all the economic prejudices and interests which are influencing that Department, to decide these matters is quite wrong, because these committees are not even composed of civil servants. I take it that these committees will not even be composed of permanent officers of the Civil Service, but will be drawn from all kinds of quarters, that may he desirable or undesirable, and they are to have the power to deride what part of their proceedings shall be heard in public and what part shall he heard in private. I think we have an excellent case; in fact, the only safeguard we have against the operation of this Bill is that the proceedings shall be public, and, in View of the fact that there are no good reasons why they should not be, I hope the House will agree to this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 83
149| Division No. 473.] | AYES | [8.58 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut, -Colonel | Cayzer, Maj, Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Albery, Irving James | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Fielden. E. B. |
| Apsley, Lord | Clarry, Reginald George | Ford, Sir P. J. |
| Astbury, Lieut. -Commander F. W. | Clayton. G. C. | Forestier-Walker, sir L. |
| Balniel, Lord | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Foster. Sir Harry S. |
| Barnett, Major sir Richard | Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Beamish, Captain T. p. H. | Cockerill, Brig. -General sir G. K. | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Bennett. A. J. | Cope, Major William | Galbraith J. F. W. |
| Berry, Sir George | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cowan, Sir Win. Henry (Islingtn., N.) | Gates. Percy |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Gilmour, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Blundell. F. N. | Crooke. J. Smedley (Derltend) | Goff, Sir Park |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Dalkeith, Earl of | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Bowyer, Capt G. E. W. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Grace, John |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Greene, W. p. Crawford |
| Brocklebank. C. E. R. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Brown, Brig, -Gen. H. C (Berks, Newb'y) | Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hacking. Captain Douglas H. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Drewe, C. | Harrison, G. J. C. |
| Burman. J. S. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Ellis, R. G. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Cassels, J. D. | Elveden, Viscount | Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M- |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Henderson, Lieut. -Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Everard, W. Lindsay | Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P. |
| Hennessy, Major J.R. G. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R. Scar. & Wh'by) | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M | Stanley, Lord(Fylde) |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr) | Stanley, Hon. u. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Storry-Deans, R, |
| Holbrook, sir Arthur Richard | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hope, Sir Harry(Forfar) | Murchison, C. K. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Neville, R. J. | Stuart, Crichton-,Lord C. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U M (Hackney, N.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteb'n) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Nuttall, Ellis | Templeton, W. P. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | O'Connor. T. J. (Bedtord, Luton) | Thorn, Rt. Col. J. G.(Dumbarton) |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Penny, Frederick George | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tinne, J. A. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Perring, Sir William George | Waddington, R. |
| Kennedy, A. R(Preston). | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Price, Major C. W. M. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Radford, E. A. | Wells, S. R. |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Raine, W. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Ramsden, E. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Loder, J. de V. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Looker, Herbert William | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Williams, Herbert G.(Reading) |
| Lord, Walter Greaves- | Remer, J.R. | Windsor,Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Rice, Sir Frederick | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Withers, John James |
| Macdonald. Capt P. D. (I.of w.) | Ropner, Major L. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Rye, F.G. | Womersley, W. J. |
| McLean, Major A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Woodcock, Colonel H.C. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Sandon, Lord | Wragg, Herbert |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Savery, S.S. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton(Norwich) |
| Malone, Major PS | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) | |
| Margesson, Captain D, | Skelton, A.N. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Meller, R. J. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) | Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. F.C. Thomson. |
| Mever, Sir Frank | Smithers, Waldron | |
| Mitchell, S.(Lanark, Lanark) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock) | Halt, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Riley, Ben |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hardie, George D. | Robinson, W.C.(Yorks, W. R.,Elland) |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abetilliery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Barr J. | Hirst, G. H. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, Henry Haydn(Merioneth) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| cluse, W. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Davies, Evan(Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davison, J.E.(Smethwick) | Lunn, William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Dennison, R. | Montague, Frederick | Webb Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Duncan, C. | Morrison, R.C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| England, Colonel A. | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Oliver, George Harold | Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Owen, Major G. | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Palin, John Henry | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gosling, Hairy | Paling, W. | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T | Potts, John S. | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes. |
| Grundy, T. W. | Purcell, A. A. |
§ Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."
150§ The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 72.
153| Division No. 474.] | AYES. | [9.6 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Bennett, A. J. |
| Albery, Irving James | Balniel, Lord | Betterton, Henry B. |
| Applin, Colonel R.V. K. | Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Birchall, Major J. Dearman |
| Apsley, Lord | Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hartington, Marquess of | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Bowyer, Cap., G E. W | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Radford, E. A. |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Haslam, Henry C. | Raine, W. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hawke, John Anthony | Ramsden, E. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen, H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Romer, J. R. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Burman, J. B. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Herbert, S. (York,N.R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hills, Major John Waller | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hogg, Ht. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Rye, F. G. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Cayzer, Maj.SirHerbt. H.(Prtsmth,S.) | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Sandon, Lord |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Savery, S. S. |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hurd, Percy A. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jephcott, A. R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cope, Major William | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | King Captain Henry Douglas | Storry- Deans, R. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Loder, J. de V. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Looker, Herbert William | Sugden, sir Wilfrid |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lord, Walter Greaves | Templeton, W. P. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Luce,Major.Gen.Sir Richard Harman | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W Mitchell- |
| Drewe, C. | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Tinne, J. A. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | McLean, Major A. | Waddington, R. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Elveden, Viscount | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Warrender, sir Victor |
| England, Colonel A. | Macquisten, F. A. | Watson, St. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Malone, Major P, B. | Wells, S. R. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Margesson, Capt. D. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Meller, R. J. | White, Lieut.-Col, Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Fielden, E. B. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wiqgins, William Martin |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham) |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Withers, John James |
| Gates, Percy | Murchison, C. K. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Neville, R. J. | Womersiey, W. J. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde |
| Goff, Sir Park | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Nuttall, Ellis | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Grace, John | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Penny, Frederick George | Wragg, Herbert |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Perring, Sir William George | |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. F. C. Thomson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Connolly, M. | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cove, W. G. | Hardie, George D. |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Baker, Walter | Day, Colonel Harry | Hirst, G. H. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Dennison, R. | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Barnes, A. | Duncan, C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Barr, J. | Gardner, J. P. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Batey, Joseph | Gibbins, Joseph | Kennedy, T. |
| Bromley, J. | Gillett, George M. | Lansbury, George |
| Charleton, H. C. | Gosling, Harry | Lawrence, Susan |
| Cluse, W. S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lee, F. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Groves, T. | Lowth, T. |
| Compton, Joseph | Grundy, T. W. | Lunn, William |
| March, S. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Townend, A. E. |
| Montague, Frederick | Scrymgeour, E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Naylor, T. E. | Scurr, John | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Oliver, George Harold | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Paling, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Whiteley, W. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Potts, John S. | Stamford, T. W. | Windsor, Walter |
| Purcell, A. A | Sullivan, Joseph | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) | |
| Riley, Ben | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R., Elland) | Thurtle, Ernest | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes. |
§ Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 4, leave out the word "articles" and insert instead thereof the word "goods."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
§ Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 8, after the word "dealers," to insert the word "traders."—[Mr. Riley.]
§ Mr. PALINGI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think this is symmetrical, and I accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)There is a manuscript Amendment to leave out Sub-section (4). At the same time there is an Amendment on the Paper to amend Sub-section (4) by inserting the words "being foodstuffs" after the word "goods." I think I ought to point out that while it would be quite in order to move to omit the whole Sub-section, if the discussion turned on the question of foodstuffs being included or not included the Amendment to insert "being foodstuffs" could not be accepted on the principle that we cannot have the same discussion twice over. I only mention that by way of caution, in ease the right hon. Gentleman intended to rest his argument on the question of foodstuffs.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMight I suggest that the discussion could conveniently take place on the two Amendments together as I gather that the effect of one Amendment is, "Let there be a marking of anything on importation," while the other says, "Let there be a marking, if need be, of foodstuffs on importation but of nothing else." It is very difficult to discuss the one without trenching on the other. If I may suggest it, a general discussion might be taken on both points together and they could be voted on separately.
§ Mr. HARRISThe importance of the Amendment which stands in my name is 154 that it restores the Bill to its original character. The chief objection to this section of the Bill is that it has been so fundamentally altered in Committee.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt would be extremely difficult to discuss the Subsection as a- whole without entering upon the question of foodstuffs. Probably the most convenient way would he to have one discussion on both, and two divisions if hon. Members wish.
§ Miss LAWRENCEI beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (4).
The Amendment is wrongly printed on the Paper. Clause 2 is really the Bill as a whole, and Sub-section (4) is the most important part of Clause 2. This Subsection gives to the committees powers which are likely to prove a hindrance to trade. It is left to the Committee to say whether it is desirable that any imported goods should bear indication of origin at the time of importation and, further.
if any such goods required by any such Order to bear an indication of origin at the time of importation do not at that time bear such an indication they shall he deemed to be goods which are prohibited to be imported…We now come to the point which I tried to put to the House in the Debate on the whole Clause, which the merchants consider, rightly or wrongly, to be a very severe handicap and embarrassment to them. We have been told that the people who are most, strenuously opposed to this part of the Bill are precisely the merchants and the Chambers of Commerce representing the larger ports. These people point out to us that to mark goods prior to importation—which is an innovation in the Bill, which was put in in Committee—means a very considerable hindrance and grievance to those engaged in trade. They point out that, in the first place, when they buy goods in the general entrepot markets, those goods, not being at the moment intended for any particular country, will not be marked and 155 cannot be marked. They explain to us that in the interests of cheapness these markets are extremely useful, that they go there and buy goods under more favourable conditions than obtain in any other markets. Such goods, bought in the entrepot market, cannot be marked prior to importation. Sub-section (4) means practically a prohibition against buying goods in these particular markets, which are designed, as it were, for the world as a whole and not simply for England.These traders further point out that this restriction will cause great difficulty in regard to re-export, and that the concessions given in regard to re-exportation do not meet their case, because just as in the entrepot markets so in the re-export trade no one knows to what country the goods may eventually go on re-export. When a merchant imports goods he does not know at the time whether he intends to re-export them or to sell them in the borne market. If we insist that these goods should be marked prior to exportation, it means in the opinion of those who carry on this re-export trade—there are very great numbers of them in London and a great number of sections of the London Chamber of Commerce have expressed themselves against this part of the Bill—we are inflicting a hindrance upon trade, involving merchants in extra cost, and doing this at a time when trade is so depressed, particularly in our ports, that any wise Government should do everything in their power to remove the slightest semblance of complaint.
Hon. Members will realise how complicated the machinery will be, if they look at paragraphs (a) and (b). There we have not merely the Board of Trade concerned, hut the Customs Officer. The Customs Officer is being entrusted with the discharge of a duty which he will find it very difficult to perform. Another point is, what "appropriate department" means. Later in the Bill, we understand that the appropriate department would mean the Ministry of Agriculture. The case put up by the traders is that this question of foreign buying, re-exportation and so forth torches matters with which the Ministry of Agriculture is not familiar, that these are questions of trade, questions of com- 156 plicated trade adjustments and trade arrangements of which the Ministry of Agriculture can have no information. Such questions as protecting English pears and English cherries or fruit from America or potatoes from all over the world, with a single eye to the British producer is one thing; but it is important to remember that the Ministry of Agriculture is not familiar with trade, and to refer the things which are dealt with here to the Ministry of Agriculture is to refer the case of the merchants to a tribunal which is, in their opinion, an ignorant tribunal, a tribunal which is not familiar with their troubles and one which will not, therefore, give them the consideration which they desire.
For all these reasons, those engaged in commerce object very strongly to Subsection (4). The people who favour the marking of goods on import are the retailers and wholesalers, particularly the retailers for the reason, and no one can blame them, that they say that it is a most intolerable business for the retail man to have the responsibility of marking goods. That is true. The retailer has succeeded in putting this very onerous duty on to the merchants. Consequently, we find that those chambers of commence which represent retailers and inland interests are quite pleased with this Clause, for the reason not that they think it a good Clause in itself, but because they have succeeded in diverting the duty of marking to another class of trader. This Sub-section will mean a very appreciable addition to the difficulties of traders. For these reasons, the Sub-section ought to be deleted.
I shall not trespass on the question regarding foodstuffs. The situation which has arisen is a new one as far as the importation of foodstuffs is concerned. The House never intended on Second reading that importers of every class of goods should he subject to these restrictions and to the hardship of marking before importation. This is an entirely new matter which has not been before the House previously. The reason why merchants have been so much alarmed and why the larger chambers of commerce have addressed communications to Members of Parliament is that they feel it to be excessively unjust to impose this burden upon them in Committee and to alter the Bill in Committee 157 so much to their disadvantage. In essence this is a Second reading in the sense that we are dealing with matters that were not before the House at the Second reading, matters which have been put in the Bill since and which are no small matters, but which, according to the opinion of those best fitted to judge, irk our overseas trade, our buying and our industries. For those reasons I move this Amendment.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe objection which has been raised to this Clause in the form in which it is now presented to the House is twofold. In the first. place, it is alleged by the hon. Lady that the Committee has done something—she did not put it as high as a breach of faith, which I have heard it called sometimes—which overrode in some manner something which was present to the mind of the House when the Rill received a Second Reading. I entirely deny that there is any ground for that suggestion at all. I am glad that the charge of breach of faith has not been made, because breach of faith, if it means anything at all, means that a promise was given and then not kept. No one can say that any promise was given by His Majesty's Government that there, would be no marking on importation. Therefore, I do not deal with that at all, but come to the allegation that the House, when it gave a Second Reading to this Bill, was unaware that marking on importation of goods other than foodstuffs was an open question. I was most careful, as those who were present in the course of the Second Reading Debate will remember, to keep the whole of this point open. I thought it right to tell the House that the matter would be discussed in Committee and that I had an open mind on it. May I remind the House of what I said on the Second I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th May, col. 891:
As regards foodstuffs, the Order may also require that the marking should be done on importation or on exposure for sale wholesale Let me pause here to add this: The question whether there should be a discretion to order the marking of goods other than foodstuffs on importation is a question which, I think, will require careful consideration in Committee. In the majority of eases, probably, the system which is pro- 158 posed in the Bill will be the fairest and most convenient course.I shall not read them to the House, but I then enumerated the considerations which must be present to the minds of any authority in ordering marking on importation or marking on sale:There are no doubt cases—I do not wish to be dogmatic—for instance, cutlery and pottery, where, if marking is to he fully effective, it ought to be on importation. In such eases, the two particular cases I have cited, the entrepot trade is not large, and, therefore, that consideration does not arise, and I think there is a great deal to be said for giving a discretion to order marking on importation in special cases of that kind. That, I think, is a matter which may well be discussed in Committee, where it can be canvassed on its merits, and I shall certainly cuter upon it with my mind not in the least prejudiced against giving such a discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1926; cols. 891–2, Vol. 193.]That being what I said myself when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, the claim that it is something which was introduced in Committee, and that it was not present to the mind of the House on Second Reading, is a claim which, I think, cannot be substantiated for a moment. Therefore, we are thrown back on the other question, which is a fitting one for debate and which was debated at great length in Committee, as to whether the balance of convenience is or is not in favour of giving a discretion to mark on importation synods other than foodstuffs. The discretion to mark foodstuffs is necessary. It will not be contended by anyone in the House that if you are to mark foodstuffs at, all, except practically the least perish able, the marking must be on importation if it is to be effective. Nobody has contested that assumption. Therefore, if you are to have the marking of foodstuffs at all, it is essential that there should he a discretion to order the marking of foodstuffs on importation. Apart from there not being a discretion to order the marking of other articles on importation, the hon. Lady, as she moved the Amendment, presented it in a way which would lead one to suppose that there was no discretion at all in this matter, that what was going to be done was that any article, however small its home production, however large its entrepot trade is is going to be swept into a general net of marking on importation. The hon. Lady will remember that there was an Amendment moved in Committee, that every- 159 thing should be marked on importation, and that I argued most strenuously against it, and the Committee rejected that. We are not dealing with that issue, but with the issue whether there should be a discretion in proper cases to mark on importation.I am bound to say, having heard all the arguments here and those advanced in Committee, arguments supported by the weight of evidence and the recommendation of the Merchandise Marks Committee of 1920, which contemplated that if marking was to be effected in certain cases apart from foodstuffs it ought to be on importation, the House would be doing a wrong thing if it denied the Committee the opportunity of recommending whether marking should be on importation or not. Everybody with a substantial interest will have the right to be heard. The entrepot trade will have the right to be heard, and plainly one of the issues which will be before any tribunal of inquiry, on the question of whether marking shall be on importation or sale, will be what will be the effect upon the entrepot trade, and the case which can be marshalled on behalf of the entrepot trade will, I have no doubt, be most ably presented at the inquiry. After that the case will be considered by the Department, and if an order is made it has to come before the House, and anybody can present a Prayer against it. The hon. Lady is asking the House to say that a case for marking on importation cannot be made, though the entrepot trade may be small, though the only effective way of marking is marking on importation. I say frankly, if the principle of the Bill is approved by the House and if the principle of marking in approved cases has been approved by the House, we ought not to deprive, an industry of showing that the one effective way of marking is on importation, and if it can succeed in running the gauntlet of all the criticisms to which it will be exposed, then we ought to have the right to make such an order. The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that this has now been adopted in the Bill. She has not drawn attention to the other Amendments which have been made in order still further to safeguard the interests of the entrepot trade. 160 It is expressly provided that the Committee is to take it into consideration. Sub-section (4) provides:
unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the re-export trade of the United Kingdom in that class or description of goods, it considers such action undesirable.It is to be expressly considered by the Committee and by the Department. In order still further to safeguard the interests of the entrepôt trade, in cases where, on consideration, marking on importation is recommended, an entirely novel provision has been introduced, that is, that not only shad there be a right to import unmarked goods which pass through this country in the ordinary course of free transit, but, if the House will look at Clause 4 it says that the Clauseshall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment.And then comes the new provision which has been introduced to this effect:or to goods declared on importation to be for re-exportation.Therefore there is that additional safeguard introduced. The hon. Lady has said that if you mark on importation it means the prohibition of imports. Does she realise that in nearly every country in the world where goods are marked it is on importation? In fats, United States of America every single article imported has to be marked on importation, and yet that has not, prevented imports. I was rather surprised when she added that a third complication was introduced, that the Customs administration was added to that of the Board of Trade. Surely she realises that the Customs is the Department which has always administered merchandise marks legislation. It has had to carry out this administration ever since the Act of 1887 and after 40 years' experience it has to carry out the same principles and the same procedure as it has carried out under the 1887 Act. I submit that in all these circumstances we should do wrong if we did not give a discretion to industries to make out a case for making on importation.
§ Mr. HARRISThe President of the Board of Trade has referred to his speech on the Second Reading in order to point 161 out that he kept some discretion to alter and broaden the Bill possibly to include manufactured goods. But he did not remind the house of the circumstances under which the Second Reading was taken. They were unique in the history of the House of Commons. It was the day of file conclusion of the General Strike, and the attention of hon. Members was entirely diverted from the ordinary affairs of Parliament. The newspaper Press had not got properly to work, and I suggest that there would have been far more criticism of the Bill if it had been introduced in other circumstances. At any rape we are assured by a great number of the trading interests of the country that when they undertook not to object to the Second Rending they were satisfied that manufactured goods were to be excluded.
No doubt many Members of the House have received a letter dated the 10th November from the London Chamber of Commerce. I understand the right hon. hon. Gentleman does not attach much importance to the views of the London Chamber of Commerce. It is true that the London Chamber of Commerce does represent trade interest. London is the centre of merchant and business houses, buy the right hon. Gentleman apparently considers this body despicable and beneath his contempt. The only way the 7,000,000 people around the River Thames live is by trade, and once you close the Port of London, once goods cease to come into the port for transshipment and re-export, London cannot live, the population must perish because it has no natural advantages from the possession of coalfields or situation I think the President of the Board of Trade ought to look for guidance to those people who claim to represent the trailers and business men of London, the greatest city in the world. Though he may attach importance to the Federation of British Industries he should pay as much attention to this important Chamber of Commerce, which, after all, is the greatest chamber of commerce in the world. What do they say? They point it out in their letter:
When the present Bill was first submitted to chambers of commerce it was recommended on the ground that a formula had been devised which should provide a reasonable safeguard to the interests of British entrepot trade. The Bill, which re- 162 ceived a Second Beading from the House of Commons on 12th May, contained a proviso that while an Agricultural Committee would be set up with the discretionary power to recommend the marking of imported foodstuffs prior to importation, the Board of Trade Committee would have no such power with regard to general merchandise.In a statement, which they pasted justifying their case, they say:I am now desired by my executive to point out that these gualifying Amendments appear quite inadeqante to safeguard the entrepot trade. In the ease of general merchandise the importer at the time of entry frequently does not knew who his eventual customers will be.The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with America. I contend that the trade of this country cannot be compared with that of any other country at all. We have been the trading centre of the world, the market of the world, owing to the fact that our poets are open. We have had the carrying trade of the world, and our mercantile marine has been built up because goods can pour into our ports, Liverpool, Hull, and so on. It is inevitable, if this machinery gets to work, if the Board of Trade can insist that large numbers of manufactured goods must be branded with the country of origin before impertation, that these goods will not conic to London for re-exportation. The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act a large number of articles which used to come to London for re-export are now going direct to their ultimate destination. Silk is one example. It used to come to London, to the warehouses in St. Paul's Churchyard and then distributed all over the world. That is ceasing. The South American traders are not coming to London to buy their silk. They are going to Lyons and Paris and Italy, and the goods are being shipped direct to the port of destination. That may seem to the right hon. Gentleman an unimportant thing but it strikes a blow at the City of London. It means less employment to the dockers, less employment to case-makers, to carmen, warehousemen, and clerks, and all the thousands of people employed in the City of London.In their letter, and also in their Resolution, the London Chamber of Commerce point out that our entrepot trade is worth something like £1.65,000,000 per year. That is a gigantic trade, and it is a great 163 help to our banking industry. Lombard Street is not likely to benefit by trade being diverted from London. Nor is the shipping business so very good. Our steamers are not going out full. One trouble is that half our steamers are going out in ballast because they cannot get the necessary cargoes. The German shipping industry had a tremendous setback during the War, but in the last three or four years a great deal of building has been going on at Amsterdam and Hamburg, and Germany is re-establishing her mercantile marine. Under this Bill the right hon. Gentleman is making a present to the mercantile marine of Germany, for which they will bless him, because under the Regulations these articles will no longer come to London. It is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to the pressure of some of his agricultural friends who are crying out for Protection. Of course, the Potteries are asking for goods to be branded in Germany, because they want to be free from the competition of German pottery, and, of course, various manufacturers who failed to get Protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Act are trying to get Protection by a side wind, by handicapping producers abroad. I think they are shortsighted and that it would be far better for them to concentrate on getting a foreign trade. Unfortunately, manufacturers too often take a shortsighted view. They do not consider the wellbeing of the country as a whole. They are inclined to ignore the consumer and to take the easier road. The whole of history proves that. They seek a protected market. But we ought to expect a larger view from the President of the Board of Trade. At any rate, he must not forget that he represents a Government which is pledged not to interfere with Free Trade, in this Parliament at any rate.
The right hon. Gentleman is a Protectionist at heart, I know, but he is a member of a Government which has a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, the Prime Minister is pledged not to tamper with Free Trade in this Parliament. Bills of this kind may not be a technical breach of that pledge, but they are a breach of the spirit of it. I hope that some business men on the other 164 side who are members of Chambers of Commerce, who know the real interests of the country and how important it is for us to maintain our trade in spite of world competition, how important it is to look after our shipping industry, will make a protest against this foolish and ill-thought-out legislation, which has no public demand behind it and is against the wishes of the most important trade centres of the country. Liverpool has protested, Manchester has protested, and Luton and London have protested. It may be that Little Pedlington is in favour of it, or that Hendon demands it, but I am satisfied that the most experienced traders in the country do not want this Clause, and I hope that the House will reject it.
§ Mr. RILEYThe President of the Board of Trade has said that the real purpose is to give a discretion to the responsible committee, and not to enforce a general prohibition against importation. But, as the Clause stands, it empowers the committee to lay down a prohibition against the importation of all kinds of goods, whether manufactured or foodstuffs, if they so desire. The Clause says that if it appears to the committee to be desirable that any imported goods should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation, and the committee so report to the appropriate Department, that Department may make a representation to His Majesty, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make provision accordingly. It is all very well for the President to say that this matter is within the discretion of the committee. I am not prepared to give discretion to the kind of committee that is likely to be set up, and I am certainly not prepared to give a discretion to the President of the Board of Trade with his predilections. I am certain that in operation the Clause will be a hindrance to trade, if not absolutely impracticable.
What are the facts of the case in one or two respects? If the power is used under this Sub-section it will be competent for any committee set up to lay down a Regulation that any goods may be entirely prohibited unless at the time of importation they bear the name of the country of origin. It has been pointed out that there is a provision whereby, if such goods are for re-export, discretion 165 will he used and the Clause would not apply. But take the case of importation here the importer declares his intention of re-exporting, and before the exportation takes place some accident occurs, the order is cancelled, and the goods intended for re-export have no longer a market available for them. What is to be done? The man cannot sell the goods, because they have not been marked. From that aspect I think the Sub-section will prove impracticable.
It has already been pointed out that when this Clause came, before the Standing Committee it referred only to foodstuffs. In Committee the word "foodstuffs" was eliminated and the word "goods" was put in its place. Therefore, into the net of possible prohibition there conies all classes of goods, both manufactured and foodstuffs. I wish to see the Clause deleted because it applies to manufactured goods and to foodstuffs. What are the practical aspects with regard to the importation of foodstuffs? There are cargoes, in the season, coming to the Port of London and to other ports every day of the week, all classes of vegetable and fruit products of a perishable kind. When we bear in mind that the promoters of this policy are particularly desirous of having the Bill applied to foodstuffs, so as to protect British agricultural products as against supplies from other countries, we are entitled to conclude that a good deal of latitude will be given to any committee which is prepared to operate these powers for the exclusion of foodstuffs. I want to avoid the inconvenience of the free importation of necessary fruit, vegetable and other foodstuffs being interfered with in any way whatever.
I have in mind the West Riding of Yorkshire. In the industrial towns there, during the summer months, the wholesale dealers in imported fruit and vegetables, having to handle perishable goods and not feeling that they can depend upon the railway services, send motor lorries from Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, and Halifax to the port of Hull. They meet the incoming steamers in order to get the consignments without delay and place them on the market as early as possible. If this Sub-section stands, it will be competent for the committee visualised in this Clause to order that no vegetables or fruits shall be 166 allowed to come in unless they are marked on importation. You will then have the practical difficulty that when steamers arrive in ports like Hull with cargoes of perishable goods—which, if not disposed of on the day of arrival, will be useless the next day—the wholesale dealers will be compelled to wait until each package has been marked with the country of origin. It will mean losing a market and wasting the goods. That policy is wasteful, and is detrimental to the interests of the consumer. Take the case of the great shipments of meat and other foodstuffs from South America, South Africa and various other countries, where the exporters frequently do not know the actual port of destination when the goods are shipped. A consignment of meat to which this provision will apply may be shipped in a South American port for Antwerp, but when the vessel is on the high seas, the trader may learn that there is a better market in London, and the cargo is diverted to London. If such goods have not been marked they cannot be allowed to come in here. On those grounds I support the deletion of the Sub-section.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BARNESIt may or may not be desirable to include general merchandise in this system of marking, hut it. will be agreed that if legislation of this kind is to be promoted at all, it should not be done in Committee when the point involved has not been brought out in the Second Reading Debate and printed in the early copies of the Bill. It is for the purpose of drawing the attention of this House and the public to the fact that wide and fundamental changes have been made in this Bill since Second Reading that we move the deletion of this Sub-section. The Bill, as it was introduced, ostensibly tried to secure to the consumer a knowledge of the origin of the foodstuffs sold to him, and large sections of trade did not press their opposition to the Bill on the Second Reading—which is the usual opportunity for criticising legislation of this kind— because of the implied guarantee that general merchandise would not be included in its provisions. The President of the Board of Trade now urges as an excuse that in moving the Second Reading of the Bill he made some passing 167 reference to the fact that in Committee he would Consider the inclusion of general merchandise. I submit that is not the way in which legislation is usually dealt with in this House. If any important principle is to be embodied in a Bill, the Government usually take responsibility for it at the outset, and disclose it in print in the early stages. Debates in the full Chamber on Second Reading obtain fuller publicity than the Committee proceedings, and I contend that to make a far-reaching change of this sort in Committee is a breach of faith with Parliament generally.
A change of attitude on the part of large sections of trade in this country took place from the time when this Amendment was permitted in Committee. The President of the Board of Trade today has used the same words as those which he used repeatedly upstairs. He has said that if small sections of the entrepot trade in this country which are interfered with by the Bill, that is no reason why the larger trading and manufacturing interests should not have the advantages which the Bill is supposed to confer. But it is these small parcels of trade which make up the aggregate of the trading figures of this country. If we examine the aggregate of £165,000,000 in detail we shall find that it is made up of a multitude of small parcels of this covering a great variety of articles. This is not only a question of the quantity of business which passes through the entrepot trade of this country, but of the reaction which this proposal will have on labour and on commerce generally. In London, Liverpool and Manchester great numbers of people earn their living from this form of trade. Are we to take it that it is criminal for people to engage in business of this kind: that it represents an illegitimate kind of trade as compared with manufactures? No one wishes to belittle the importance of any trading or manufacturing interest, but in this Bill those interests are being pitted against the interests of another section of legitimate traders. That is where the injury ultimately will develop.
As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has pointed out, the evidence connected with a good deal of this trade cannot be submitted to these committees because while they are sitting importers in the one case and exporters 168 in the other may not be able to determine beforehand what portion of the particular goods is to be retained in this country and what portion is to be earmarked for re-export. We are introducing a complication into national trade. It would have been better had the Government limited this Bill to the original intention. This is a class of legislation which should be built up from experience. There is no opposition to the original intention that the consumers should know what they are buying. If there is unanimity en that fundamental principle, it would 1.e far better to deal with this legislation in piece-meal fashion, taking first one category of goods, trying it out by experience, and building up, as a result of experience, a maximum amount of unity and support in the community. But by introducing in this half-secretive fashion legislation that will dislocate large sections of trade in this country, you will only bring about the maximum amount of friction with the minimum amount of good.
Mr. MORRISONI rise to put only one question. Surely, after all the arguments which have been brought. forward from this side of the House, we are entitled to have at least some further reply from the Minister.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTEROn that point. I replied at very considerable length after the speeches had been delivered on the other side and after I had waited to see whether any other speeches were to lie delivered, and I received an intimation that my hon. Friend was not intending to speak. I cannot agree that it is in the public interest that we should reiterate the same statements.
Mr. MORRISONI know that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, and that he made a fairly comprehensive answer to the points which were put to him. But since then, several other Members have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), and I think consideration should be given to the points which they have brought forward.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI was extraordinarily interested in the speech the hon. Member made, but it did not raise any new issue.
§ Mr. GILLETTI should like to refer, not to the fact that no second reply has been given by the Minister, but to the fact that we have not heard a single word from the Back Benches on the other side on this subject. An hon. Member has referred to the letter which has been sent to hon. Members of this House by the London Chamber of Commerce. The London Chamber of Commerce largely consists of members who are supporters the present Government, and it seems amazing that no Member on the benches behind the Minister has voiced the opinions of the large body of persons whose views have been expressed in that letter. It does seem an amazing thing just at this time, when we have probably arrived at the end of the coal stoppage, aid when there are hopes of a trade revival, that all that the President of the Board of Trade has to propose is to bring certain additional barriers which will prevent the traders getting to work in the way in which it is desired. When we think of the difficulties that trade has suffered from in regard to the position on the Continent, when we boar in mind that it is beginning to improve, we find that the Minister proposes to set up committees, which can sit in private, and which at any tune may put into force greater restrictions, which all add to the difficulties of trading at the present time. It is often said that Members on this side make proposals which would lead to the appointment of fresh officials. But by this kind of thing, and by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the safeguarding of industries, you only lead to the appointment of more
§ and more officials, and, although it may be a small point, you are imposing more work upon the staffs of the merchants and thereby adding to the cost of trade. The newspapers which support hon. Members opposite are constantly complaining of the weight of taxation and things of that kind, but, as soon as the Minister brings forward a proposal of this sort, no reference is made to the cost—though it may be small, it is cumulative—which is to be thrown open the merchants of the City of London.
§ It seems an amazing thing that, when we have such a protest from the London Chamber of Commerce, no hon. Member representing the City of London has spoken, and there is no Member of the City who is even in the Chamber at the present time. A considerable part of my constituency may be said to be almost part of the City, lying just outside its boundary, and it has very large financial and business interests. I venture, therefore, to put before the House the case of the large numbers of people, however much it may be beneficial to other people, to whom the proposals of the President of the Board of. Trade, if they are put into force and the more they are put into force, will mean greater hindrances to their trade, and increased duties and responsibilities placed upon trade, which at the present time, an hon. Members opposite know well, has too many difficulties to bear.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'should' in line 20, stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 89.
173| Division No. 475.] | AYES. | [10.13 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon William Clive | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. |
| Albery, Irving James | Briggs, J. Harold | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Brittain, sir Harry | Cope, Major William |
| Apsley, Lord | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Bullock, Captain M. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Balniel, Lord | Burman, J. B. | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dalziel, Sir Davison |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Campbell, E. T. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Cassels, J. D. | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Dawson, Sir Phillip |
| Blundell, F. N. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Drewe, C. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Clarry, Reginald George | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Clayton, G. C. | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Elveden, Viscount | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Rye, F. G. |
| England, Colonel A. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sandon, Lord |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Savery, S. S. |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Falls, Sir Bertram G. | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Fermoy, Lord | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Fielden, E. B. | Loder, J. de V. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Looker, Herbert William | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Smithers, Waldron |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.) |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland) |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | McLean, Major A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | MacMillan, Captain H. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Gates, Percy | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macquisten, F. A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Goff, Sir Park | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Malone, Major P. B. | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Grace, John | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Meller, R. J. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Meyer, Sir Frank | Tinne, J. A. |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Waddington, R. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hanbury, C. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Murchison, C. K. | Wells, S. R. |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Neville, R. J. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nuttall, Ellis | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Penny, Frederick George | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Withers, John James |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R-,Scar. & Wh'by) | Perring, Sir William George | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Hogg, Rt, Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Radford, E. A. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Raine, W. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Ramsden, E. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wragg, Herbert |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Remer, J. R. | |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Rhys, Hon C. A. U. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Rice, Sir Frederick | Captain Margesson and Major Hennessy. |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gillett, George M. | March, S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gosling, Harry | Maxton, James |
| Baker, J. (Wofverhamton, Bilston) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Montague, Frederick |
| Baker, Walter | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Groves, T. | Naylor, T. E. |
| Barnes, A. | Grundy, T. W. | Oliver, George Harold |
| Barr, J. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Owen, Major G. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Palin, John Henry |
| Briant, Frank | Hardie, George D. | Paling, W |
| Bromley, J. | Harris, Percy A. | Ponsonby, Arthur |
| Buchanan, G. | Hartshorn, Rt, Hon. Vernon | Potts, John S. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hayday, Arthur | Purcell, A. A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hirst, G. H. | Riley, Ben |
| Compton, Joseph | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Connolly, M. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cove, W. G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Kelly, W. T. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Kennedy, T. | Scurr, John |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lansbury, George | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Dennison, R. | Lawrence, Susan | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Duncan, C | Lee, F. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Lowth, T. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lunn, William | Stamford, T. W. |
| Stephen, Campbell | Wallhead, Richard C. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sullivan, Joseph | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Windsor, Walter |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) | Webb, Rt. Hon, Sidney | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.) | Whiteley, W. | |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) | Wiggins, William Martin | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith. |
| Townend, A. E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
§ Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 20, after the word "goods," to insert the words "being foodstuffs."—[Mr. Harris.]
174§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 228.
175| Division No. 476.] | AYES. | [10.21 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hardie, George D. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Baker, Walter | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scurr, John |
| Barnes, A. | Hayday, Arthur | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Barr, J. | Hayes, John Henry | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Briant, Frank | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Bromley, J. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Stamford, T. W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kennedy, T. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lansbury, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Compton, Joseph | Lawrence, Susan | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lee, F. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lowth, T. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lunn, William | Townend, A. E. |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | March, S. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Maxton, James | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Montague, Frederick | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C. | Naylor, T. E. | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gardner, J. P. | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Palin, John Henry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gosling, Harry | Ponsonby, Arthur | Windsor, Walter |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Potts, John S. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Purcell, A. A. | |
| Groves, T. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Riley, Ben | Sir Robert Hutchison and Major Owen. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Campbell, E. T. | Elveden, Viscount |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cassels, J. D. | England, Colonel A. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Evans, Captain A, (Cardiff, South) |
| Apsley, Lord | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.) | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Clarry, Reginald George | Fermoy, Lord |
| Balniel, Lord | Clayton, G. C. | Fielden, E. B. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Ford, Sir P. J. |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. | Foster, Sir Harry S. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Cope, Major William | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Galbraith, J. F. W. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Gates, Percy |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Curzon, Captain Viscount | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Brass, Captain W. | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Goff, Sir Park |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Grace, John |
| Briggs, J. Harold | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Graham, Frederick F. (Cumbld., N.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Dean, Arthur Wellesley. | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Drewe, C. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Burman, J. B. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Ellis, R. G. | Hanbury, C. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Malone, Major P. B. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Meller, R. J. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Meyer, Sir Frank | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Hills, Major John Walter | Morden, Colonel Walter Grant | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Murchison, C. K. | Thom, Lt. Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Neville, R. J. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Hurst, Gerald B. | Nuttall, Ellis | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Penny, Frederick George | Waddington, R. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Jephcott, A. R. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Perring, Sir William George | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Wells, S. R. |
| Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| King, Captain Henry Douglas | Price, Major C. W. M. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Radford, E. A. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Raine, W. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Ramsden, E. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Loder, J. de V. | Remer, J. R. | Withers, John James |
| Locker, Herbert William | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Lord, Waller Greaves- | Rice, Sir Frederick | Womersley, W. J |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hush Vere | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Wood, D. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Ropner, Major L. | Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'gc & Hyde) |
| MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Rye, F. G. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| McLean, Major A. | Sandon, Lord | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Savery, S. S. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wills, Westb'y) | |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Skelton, A. N. | Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Margesson. |
§
Further Amendments made: Ire page line 27, after the first word "Majesty," insert the words
that it is desirable that the goads should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation.
In line 29, leave out the words "the preceding Sub-section," and insert instead thereof "Sub-section (1) of this Section."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move in page 4, line 3, after the word "re-exportation," to insert the words
or the ultimate destination of which is not determined at the time of importation.It is very important in this entrepot trade that every opportunity should be provided in the Bill in order that the traders may feel that they have some security in regard to retaining that very important business. I rather gather that hon. Members opposite think this business is not worth preserving, but I hope the President of the Board of Trade will be of the opinion that, every attempt should 176 be made to protect the business of these merchants engaged In the entrepot trade which has been of such a tremendous assistance to this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the view that opposition to this Clause is not worth conciliating. I suggest that by accepting the words which I have proposed the Government would be showing a very sincere desire not to interfere unduly with this kind of business, because it is very difficult to say where the ultimate destination of some of these articles will be. The English trade covers so many markets and trade centres that the only way it can exist is by being able to send tae goods to another market when one market is closed, perhaps because of the rate of exchange or of some upheaval. Whatever the cause may be, I think the insertion of words of this character are necessary if we wish to reassure the merchants of this country that their business will not be unduly interfered with by this Section.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKI would like to point out to the House that the Bill does not provide for universal compulsory marking, but only where a case has been made out for it. Already in the Amendment introduced into Sub-section (4) hon. Members will see that we have gone a very long way to meet the point which the mover of this Amendment desires should be met, by the insertion of the Words
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the re-export trade of the United Kingdom.There is also the proviso that the ordershall not apply to goods imported for exportation after transport through the United Kingdom.
§
this proviso is
subject to compliance with such conditions as to security for the re-exportation of the goods as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose.
§ I think the hon. Member will agree that his Amendment is already very largely provided for in the Bill. There is another very important point about the Amendment, and that is that, even if it were desirable to insert it, the difficulties which it would introduce into the working of the Measure would completely outweigh any advantages, because it would provide every possible kind of loophole for evasion. I hope, accordingly, that the House will not accept it.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 225.
179| Division No. 477.] | AYES. | [10.37 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Grundy, T. W. | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Baker, J. (Wofverhamton, Bilston) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Riley, Ben |
| Baker, Walter | Hardie, George D. | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Harris, Percy A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Barnes, A. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Barr, J. | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Batey, Joseph | Hayes, John Henry | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Briant, Frank | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Bromley, J. | Hirst, G. H. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Connolly, M. | Lansbury, George | Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.) |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawrence, Susan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Crawfurd, H. E. | Lee, F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Lowth, T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Dennison, R. | March, S. | Whiteley, W. |
| Duncan, C. | Maxton, James | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Dunnico, H. | Montague, Frederick | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| England, Colonel A. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Oliver, George Harold | Windsor, Walter |
| Gillett, George M. | Palin, John Henry | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Ponsonby, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Potts, John S. | Sir Robert Hutchison and Major |
| Groves, T. | Purcell, A. A. | Owen. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Blundell, F. N. | Campbell, E. T. |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cassels, J. D. |
| Albery, Irving James | Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Cautley, Sir Henry S. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) |
| Apsley, Lord | Brass, Captain W. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Astor, Viscountess | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Clarry, Reginald George |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Briggs, J. Harold | Clayton, G. C. |
| Balniel, Lord | Briscoe, Richard George | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Brittain, Sir Harry | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D, |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Bullock, Captain M. | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Bennett, A. J. | Burman, J. B. | Cope, Major William |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.) |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Hiffe, Sir Edward M. | Remer, J. R. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Dalziel, Sir Davison | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jephcott, A. R. | Ropner, Major L. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Rye, F. G. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Dawson, Sir Phillip | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Sandon, Lord |
| Drewe, C. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Savery, S. S. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lane Fox, Col, Rt. Hon. George R. | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y) |
| Ellis, R. G. | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Elveden, Viscount | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Loder, J. de V. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Looker, Herbert William | Smithers, Waldron |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Lord, Walter Greaves- | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) |
| Fermoy, Lord | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Ford, Sir p. J. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Storry-Deans, R. |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | McLean, Major A. | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Streatfield, Captain S. R. |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Macquisten, F. A. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | MacRobert, Alexander M. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Malone, Major P. B. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Gates, Percy | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meller, R. J. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Goff, Sir Park | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Waddington, R. |
| Grace, John | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Graham, Frederick F. (Cumb'ld., N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Morden, Colonel Walter Grant | Wells, S. F. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Murchison, C. K. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple- |
| Hammersley, S. S. | Neville, R. J. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Hanbury, C. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Nuttall, Ellis | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Withers, John James |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Penny, Frederick George | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Booth) | Perring, Sir William George | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P. | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.). |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R-.Scar. & Wh'by) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Radford, E. A. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Raine, W. | |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ramsden, E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) | Major Hennessy and Captain Margesson |
Mr. MORRISONI beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
(5) This Section shall not apply to goods imported for the purpose of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods, or for the purposes of replacement, repair, or maintenance, and which goods so imported are—180 This is another effort to try to get the Board of Trade or the Government out of some of the difficulties into which they are likely to get as a result of this Bill. The difficulties will be numerous, because of the extraordinary amount of confusion in the minds of all those who are interested in the Bill from the business point of view. All manner of constructions are being put upon the different Clauses. The words which I have moved are intended to cover very small articles which are to be used for replacements. There are many English commodities which have small foreign parts, and it is obvious that if anything is to be done 181 by legislation to prevent these parts from being replaced when they are worn out, it will cause very serious loss to a number of people. Possibly, the objection may come from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to differentiate as to which articles are for replacements. In case the right hon. Gentleman urges that objection, I would suggest that the goods covered by my Amendment will be imports coming to manufacturers and not to wholesalers or retailers. Therefore, it would be possible from that point of view to fix exactly in the Bill the particular goods that I am endeavouring to exempt by my Amendment.
- (a) of so small a size as to render marking impracticable; or
- (b) of such a nature that marking would impair their efficiency; or
- (c) of such a nature that it would not be practically possible to apply either at all or effectively an indication of origin."
The Bill in its present form may mean the prohibition of the importation of vital parts required for many articles. Let me give the House a few examples of articles that may be prohibited under this Bill, and, I think hon. Members will agree, somewhat unfairly prohibited. First, the wheels, springs and other parts of watches and clocks may be prohibited from coming into this country. Secondly, nipples and other small parts of Primus stoves may be prohibited, or it may be difficult to get them in under this Bill, thirdly, the small parts of gas appliances, and, fourthly, the small, delicate parts of electrical appliances. All these parts will be required, and they only come in as component parts of other articles which are manufactured and sold in this country. It will be difficult and almost impossible in many cases because, of the minuteness of the articles to make any mark upon them. I am certain that upon the small wheels or spring's of a watch it will not be possible to stamp the words "Manufactured in Czechoslovakia" or "Manufactured in Switzerland," or anything of that sort. That, again, may raise the whole question of marking the containers. I do not wish to be definitely tied down to the exact words of the Amendment. I feel sure that the President of the Board of Trade will realise the genuine difficulties that will arise in trying to carry this proposal into effect, and I hope he will be able, if he does not accept my words, to accept some words that will deal with the matter.
§ Mr. RILEYI beg to second the Amendment.
I would remind the House that the effect of it would be to confine the pro- 182 hibition practically to complete articles. It is better to confine interference with trade to the complete article which may compete with some other complete article of British manufacture. As the Clause stands, the prohibition may apply to every part of a composite article. However many parts it may consist of, the prohibition may apply to every single one. Absurd cases are bound to arise if the Clause stands as at present. Let me take two simple examples. There is a considerable trade done in this country in pocket knives of various types where the blades are made in Sheffield and the ornamented sides of the knife with special patterns stamped on them come from a foreign country. It is a class of work which is not done in Sheffield, although I am not saying it, could not be done in Sheffield. These ornamented sides are attractive, and manufacturers of cutlery in Sheffield find it advantageous to import them and by so doing to expand their own manufacture of blades. As this Clause stands there is a difficulty in the way of the continuance of that trade. Again, there is a simple thing like an ordinary lead pencil with a little bit of rubber at the end united by a piece of metal. I understand from the trade that the three parts are often made in different countries, the metal coming from Sheffield, the pencil from Bavaria and the rubber from some other country. This Amendment is devised to meet that difficulty and I hope it will be accepted.
§ Sir B. CHADWICKThere are very good reasons for not accepting this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved spoke of replacements, but, great difficulty would arise through this if the Amendment were accepted. It would be impossible to distinguish between parts coming in for replacement and others. He says those goods would go to manufacturers, but I do not see that that follows at all. A number of these goods would go to shops selling parts of other goods. Again, we have met his case by the words in Sub-section 6 of Clause 2. If the hon. Gentleman will look at line 35, he will find that an Order cannot be recommended if the Department considers that it is practically impossible to apply the indication of origin effectively or without injury. That I think is a clear answer to his point as to the impossibility of marking.
§ Major CRAWFURDThe hon. Member who has replied began his remarks by saying that he proposed to give one or two good reasons for rejecting the Amendment. He gave a partial answer. I admit his reply was cogent as far as it went, but his answer really dealt with matters of detail, and there is a far larger matter of principle lying behind the Amendment than mere questions of detail. Earlier in the evening we were told by a colleague of the President of the Board of Trade that, as far as he was concerned, he was principally concerned with the producer, and I shall not be far wrong if I assume that the right hon. Gentleman himself and Members opposite are also concerned principally with the producer.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTWe are.
§ Major CRAWFURDI am encouraged by that observation. The hon. and gallant Member who has this cause so much at heart—may I say, without any offence, has it much more in his heart than in his head—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—I can hardly withdraw to please hon. Members opposite without withdrawing what the hon. and gallant Member has said.
§ Sir H. CROFTI take it as a compliment from you, at any rate.
§ Major CRAWFURDThen everybody is pleased, and we can pass on to the next argument. In conversation with hon. Members belonging to the party opposite they have told rue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I understand it would be outside the Rules of Order to mention hon. Members by name. [HON. MEMBERS: "Constituency!"] They have told me that they are interested in the producer, or, as one hon. Member said, they have the interests of the British working man at heart. There is a School of thought, still represented on the benches opposite, which believes that you are actually helping the British working man by preventing the importation of foreign goods into this country. I suggest that if the hon. Member who replied on behalf of the Government would leave the word "replacement," upon which some attention has been concentrated, and go back to the words immediately preceding it, "imported for the purpose 184 of forming part of or for use with other manufactured goods," he would come to the Amendment, which in my view embodies a very large principle. And the principle is this, that if you are going to stop the importation of foreign goods which are used in the manufacture of other goods you are going to inflict a very grave blow indeed upon employment in this country to the detriment of the producer whom the Government and hon. Members opposite are always saying they are out to benefit.
§ It being Eleven of the Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed To-morrow.