§ Mr. HARRISI beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words "motor bicycles and motor tricycles."
The name of McKenna has been so much taken in vain by various Chancellors of the Exchequer, and his War taxes have been pleaded as a justification for so many bad taxes, that it is interesting to note the provisions of this Clause, Even Mr. McKenna, hard up as he was for revenue, and ingenious as he was in finding the necessary money to carry on the War, came to the conclusion, after taking careful advice, that it would not be either wise or satisfactory to tax motor tyres. At this stage of these proceedings I am only going to refer to one side of the question. The principle underlying the general taxation of motor tyres can be considered subsequently on the main Question of the Clause standing part, but I am going now to ask the Committee, whatever it may decide on the larger question of policy, to exclude taxes on tyres of motor bicycles and tricycles. When we consider this as a question of policy I think there is an unanswerable case. It may be argued that our importation of motor bicycles and tricycles is comparatively small compared with our production and export of those articles. No doubt, thanks largely to the import of untaxed materials, we have been able to do the main motor-bicycle trade of the world. The English motor bicycle and the English motor car stand supreme, not only in our own Dominions but throughout the world, for price, wearing qualities and efficiency.
We depend largely on our export trade, although at present, in spite of the duty on the completed article, we are still importing a considerable number—some thousands each year. The Committee, by this Clause, is being asked to impose a tax on an important accessory of the motor bicycle, and, in fact, on a component part. Does it not seem a little unwise and short-sighted, in view of the immense export trade which we are doing, to throw out this challenge to foreign countries with which we are doing a large business? Does it seem a sane policy, even to those who believe in protection? There is also the point 274 of view of the users of the motor bicycle. In many parts of the country, especially in the Midlands, the motor bicycle has become essential to the ordinaiy working man. In certain towns you will see hundreds of motor bicycles carrying men to and from their work. The motor car is outside the reach of these men in price. In America the Ford car very largely does this work, but in England, partly because of the character of our roads and partly because of the adventurous spirit of our people the noisy bumping of the motor bicycle is preferred. Further, a man, who would never dream of owning a motor car, is able to keep a motor bicycle because it is easily stored, while the initial outlay is lighter and the tax smaller than in the case of a motor car. It may be said that the tyre is a very small part of the bicycle, but I would remind the Committee that in taxing the tyre they are coming very near to another road tax. The tyre tax is very near the old wheel tax, and the wheel tax nearly brought down at least one Government owing to the great outcry against it. This blessed Conservative and reactionary Government by taxing tyres is ingeniously restoring the principle of the wheel tax and, perhaps, a window tax will be the next experiment if we live long enough under the reckless extravagance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The principle in this Clause seems to me to be unsound. I am not in a position to state the percentage of imports of tyres coming under the categories of motor bicycles and motor tricycles, but I think there is a very strong case for exempting this very essential part of a popular means of conveyance. The housing problem is a burning question with social reformers, and one of the difficulties experienced in London and elsewhere has been that of carrying people from the centres of population to the new garden suburbs which are coming into existence. In London the motor bicycle has not solved the problem but in provincial towns, where the difficulty of access is not so serious, the motor bicycle has been of tremendous assistance and has enabled men to live six or 10 or 20 miles away from their work. There is an overwhelming case against the inclusion of motor bicycles in this Clause.
275 I am glad to see in his place my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft). I admire his frankness, sincerity and courage. There is no mincing of words and no quibbling on his part. He does not profess to be at heart a Free Trader, or to be against the imposition of taxes. He is, frankly and honestly, a Protectionist. Not only does he believe Protection is a good thing, but he has the courage of his principles. That is the type of opponent I respect, and his attitude helps the cause far better than does the attitude of Members on the Treasury bench, who assure us they are really Free Traders, not in favour of tariffs, but only going in for safeguarding, or, in the case of some duties, supporting them not in order to safeguard industry but merely for the sake of obtaining revenue. As I understand it, the Financial Secretary will justify this tax not because it is protective but because the country is hard up, and other sources than films and matches must he found in order to provide money. I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth will say that already a new factory is going to be put up in this country by a French firm which is fighting the great tyre trust, the Dunlop Company. I am informed, however, that arrangements were made to erect that factory before ever this tax was thought of.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTMay I correct the hon. Member, as he referred specially to me? May I tell him that his information is out of date, because I think two other factories are coming to this country?
§ Mr. HARRISThat is quite possible, hut our experience is that so soon as a tariff is put on, and Protection is thus provided, these big concerns come together and either fix up a selling agreement or form a trust. Tariffs are the friends of trusts. The tyre companies in this country have always had against them the healthy breeze of foreign competition, and they have not been able to establish any combines or to bring all the various companies into line; but experience in America and in other parts of the world proves that so soon as a tariff wall is put up arrangements are made whereby if the price of the article 276 is not raised, at any rate it is stabilised; which is very similar to raising prices, because otherwise prices would tend to fall as production improves. As soon as this tariff wall is properly fixed and entrenched these big manufacturing companies, powerful, wealthy companies, will come to an arrangement and a combine or trust will be formed; and to avoid that I think it is essential that we should have the advantage of imports to protect the consumer and prevent the trusts from withholding the advantage of low prices from the public. I think I have made a very strong case, and I hope the Financial Secretary will listen to the light of reason, and at any rate exclude tyres for motor bicycles, which are so essential for the convenience of the working class.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH?I rise merely to ask whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury proposes to make any reply.
§ Mr. McNEILLI certainly propose to make a reply if a case is made out on the other side of the Committee.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANSurely the Financial Secretary is not going to dispose of a question of this importance by a sneer at the case which has been put up from these benches? I feel quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will never be lacking in courtesy, And if he has been listening, as I have no doubt he has been, to what my hon. Friend has said, he will know that a case has been made out which merits some reply from the Treasury bench.
§ Mr. McNEILLMay I interrupt to say that is quite true, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his own name to this Amendment, and I thought courtesy required that I should allow him to strengthen the case of his hon. Friend.
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe right hon. Gentleman need have no anxiety on that score. I do not propose to detain the Committee, because my hon. Friend has made out a sufficiently good case to merit a reply from the right hon. Gentleman and I hope we shall have it.
§ Mr. McNEILLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to give the Committee the benefit of his views on this matter? Otherwise, I consider I am entitled to choose my own time for addressing the Committee.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESI think it would be the very minimum of courtesy for the Financial Secretary to tell us for what reason it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. There is a great deal to be said in favour of it, apart from the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). I consider that in the interest of the health of the nation it would be a splendid thing—[Laughter]—this is no laughing matter—for those poor people who are unable to afford motor cars, but are able to afford bicycles and motor cycles, to be able to get tyres a little cheaper. In my constituency in the East End of London there are hundreds of people whose sole recreation, whose only means of getting out into the fresh air, is on a bicycle or a motor bicycle, and I know the sacrifices to which some of them submit in order to save enough money to purchase one. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman is asked whether he, can see his way either to reduce or altogether remove this tax on tyres, I think we are entitled to some reply. We are not asking him to remove the tax on tyres altogether. I ask him why the Government are unable to make this reduction in the tax on cheap tyres and I hope he will let us have some reply, or we shall have to speak at considerably greater length on the subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. McNEILLI do not like to disappoint the Committee any longer as hon. Members seem anxious that I should make a reply at the earliest possible moment instead of waiting in order to collect the various views, which are not always identical, in favour of the Amendment, a course which I thought would be more convenient. I do not propose to tape up the time of the Committee by rising repeatedly to make a reply to everybody who chooses to address it. I have sometimes heard complaints that an individual reply is not given on every occasion, but I was proposing to wait until a number of Members had addressed the Committee before attempting to give a reply on behalf of the Government. As it is, I have to be content with the speeches of the two hon. Members and it is quite true that the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) did strengthen the case 278 which had been made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris).
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green supported this Amendment on a number of different grounds. First of all, there was the orthodox Free Trade argument. That did not surprise me at all. He saw that this particular Clause is some infringement of that doctrine, and naturally he did not lose the opportunity of pointing it out. His second point was that as compared with motor cars the motor-bicycle is used by the comparatively less well-to-do. Then he passed on to the point that injury might be inflicted upon our export trade if the Amendment were not accepted. To these arguments the hon. and gallant Member who followed him added the cause of national health. So now we have all these various grounds, including national health, as a reason for making this particular exception to the duty which will be imposed upon motor tyres by this Bill.
I do riot think the Committee will expect me to go over all these various reasons, including national health. I admit at once that motor cycling is a delightful, a healthy and a desirable recreation, and that as many people as possible ought to go out into the country on motor cycles, and therefore I cannot be accused of being unsympathetic on that score. I also admit that the owner of the motor bicycle is, as a rule, a less wealthy person than the man who has a large motor car. I do not see, however, that either of these reasons affords any sufficient ground for making this exception to the duty. We have been talking about the duties on tea and other commodities consumed by the mass of the people. Taking a broad general view, there is no doubt that all people who are fortunate enough to own motor vehicles of any sort are, on the whole, comparatively well-to-do as compared with the large mass of the people, and I do not think there is any legitimate ground for claiming that the owner of a motor cycle is distinguished from any other user of imported tyres.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green said it was to the advantage of everybody owning a motor ear to have tyres imported into this country, because in that way he would be able to get them cheaper. I am not at all sure that is the case. The motor-car 279 tyres manufactured by Dunlops have not risen in price since the announcement of this duty, and I do not believe they will. At any rate, if they do, the rise will be perfectly trifling. In addition to that, as the hon. Member himself mentions, some foreign manufacturers have set up, and are intending to set up, factories in this country, and I have no doubt that the competition which that will cause amongst manufacturers in this country will prevent any real rise in the price of tyres such as could give any legitimate cause for complaint.
Let me point out the most important reasons for not accepting this Amendment. Last year an exception in favour of commercially-used motor cars was done away with, and the main reason for that, as was explained at the time, lay in the very great administrative difficulties of distinguishing in the case of the parts and accessories of motor cars whether or not the imported article was for use on a commercial vehicle, in which case it would be exempt from duty, or for use on another sort of car, in which case it would be subject to duty. It was for that reason, mainly, that that distinction was swept away last year. If this Amendment Were accepted, we should be reintroducing that difficulty in another form, and in some ways a more obnoxious form, because I am advised that it would be quite impossible for the Customs Department to say when a tyre reached our shores whether it was to come under the exemptions which this Amendment would introduce or whether it would be subject to duty.
| Division No. 218.] | AYES. | [6.34 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Blundell, F. N. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Ainsworth, Major Charles | Boothby, R. J. G. | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton |
| Albery, Irving James | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chapman, Sir S. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Chilcott, Sir Warden |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Christie, J. A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Brass, Captain W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. |
| Apsley, Lord | Brittain, Sir Harry | Clayton, G. C. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. |
| Atkinson, C. | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Buchan, John | Conway, Sir W. Martin |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Buckingham, Sir H. | Coops, A. Duff |
| Balniel, Lord | Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Cope, Major William |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bullock, Captain M. | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Burman, J. B. | Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Butt, Sir Alfred | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Bennett, A. J. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Berry, Sir George | Caine, Gordon Hall | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Campbell, E. T. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
§ For that reason, and for no other, I must ask the Committee to reject this Amendment. Really, I can see no reason whatever in its favour. I have already explained the reason why an exemption was made in the case of the duty on these tyres in 1915. The Committee will remember that originally tyres were not exempted from the duty imposed in 1915 upon accessories and parts, but it was by an Amendment introduced in 1915 that an exemption was matte in the case of tyres for reasons with which the Committee is familiar. Those reasons have absolutely passed away now, and there is no reason why that exemption should be continued which, for special reasons, was introduced in 1915. Those reasons apply all round to all sorts of tyres whether for use in the case of motor cycles or large cars. No satisfactory reason has been adduced by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment in favour of its acceptance, nor has he made out any case for his proposal. I admit that the hon. Member has brought forward some reasons which might be considered valid against a duty on tyres all round, but he has made no case for this particular exemption. This Amendment is one which would cut into the administration of the duty, and it would mean a certain amount of loss to the revenue. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left put stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 130.
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Hume, Sir G. H. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Huntingfield, Lord | Sanders, Sir Robert A. |
| Drewe, C. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's) | Sandon, Lord |
| Ellis, R. G. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Elveden, Viscount | Jacob, A. E. | Savery, S. S. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Jephcott, A. R. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Fielden, E. B. | Kindersley, Major Guv M. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) |
| Finburgh, S. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Skelton, A. N. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Foster, Sir Harry S. | Lamb, J. O. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Gates, Percy | Long, Major Eric | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Gauit Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Looker, Herbert William | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Lougher, Lewis | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Goff, Sir Park | Lumley, L. R. | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Lynn, Sir R. J. | Tasker, R. Inigo. |
| Grace, John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Templeton, W. P. |
| Grattan Doyle, Sir N. | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | McLean, Major A. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Macmillan, Captain H. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Malone, Major P. B. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Meyer, Sir Frank | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Hall, Lieut. -Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Harrison, G. J. C. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Moreing, Captain A. H. | Wells, S. R. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Hawke, John Anthony | Nelson, Sir Frank | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Penny, Frederick George | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Withers, John James |
| Hilton, Cecil | Perring, Sir William George | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hoare, Lt,-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G. | Preston, William | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde) |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Price, Major C. W. M. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Radford, E. A. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Holt, Capt. H. P. | Raine, Sir Walter | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich) |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Remer, J. R. | |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Rentoul, G. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Gillett, George M. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Connolly, M. | Gosling, Harry |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine) |
| Baker, Walter | Crawfurd, H. E. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Groves, T. |
| Barnes, A. | Day, Colonel Harry | Grundy, T. W. |
| Batey, Joseph | Dennison, R. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Duckworth, John | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dunnico, H. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) |
| Briant, Frank | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hardie, George D. |
| Broad, F. A. | Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington) | Harney, E. A. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | England, Colenel A. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hayday, Arthur |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Forrest, W. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Charleton, H. C. | Gardner, J. P. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Clowes, S. | Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Gibbins, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Palin, John Henry | Stewart I. (St. Rollox) |
| Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Strauss, E. A. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Potts, John S. | Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Riley, Ben | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Ritson, J. | Townend. A. E. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) | Viant, S. P. |
| Kelly, W. T. | Rose, Frank H. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Kennedy, T. | Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Scrymgeour, E. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Lansbury, George | Scurr, John | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Lawrence, Susan | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Lee, F. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Welsh, J. C. |
| Lindley, F. W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Whiteley, W. |
| Lowth, T. | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Lunn, William | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Mackinder, W. | Smillie, Robert | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rothe, Aithe) | Williams, David (Swansea, E) |
| Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) | Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| March, S. | Snell, Harry | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Montague, Frederick | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Windsor, Walter |
| Morrison, B. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) | Wright, W. |
| Mosley, Oswald | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Murnin, H. | Stamford, T. W. | |
| Naylor, T. E. | Stephen, Campbell | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. GILLETTI might remind the Committee that the subject we have now before us brings up that hardy annual known as the McKenna. Duties. Possibly many hon. Members would have been quite glad if some Clause, possibly similar to that dealing with medicines, had been introduced taking the McKenna Duties out of the purview of this Committee. I know we have discussed this question until it has became almost stale, and the arguments must inevitably be very much the same year after year. The McKenna Duties seem to have been used by the party opposite rather as an excuse—
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope)I must remind the hon. Member that this Clause only refers to the duty on tyres.
§ Mr. GILLETTMay I put it that the exemption is due to the fact that originally they were part of the McKenna Duties. For definite reasons they were taken out of that category, and they are now being placed in the same position as the other McKenna Duties.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member wishes to deal with the McKenna Duties, he must put down a new Clause. The discussion on this Clause must be confined to tyres.
§ Mr. GILLETTI should be the last person to desire to discuss the whole question 284 of the McKenna Duties, because I am sure the Committee is tired of discussing that subject. I take it, however, that I shall be in order in reminding the Committee that it was as a part of the McKenna Duties that this duty on tyres first came, before the House, and the reason, although the Financial Secretary did not mention it, was that tyres were taken out of the original duties during the War, because it was thought that their inclusion would give offence to certain American interests at a time when the relationship between this country and America was in a rather difficult position, on account of the stoppage by our Navy of goods that were coming to Europe and ether parts of the world. The reason for their exemption was, therefore, purely a political reason. I take it that the argument of the Financial Secretary is that excuse has now been removed, and that, as there is great need for money, the duties might as well be put back. It seems to me that, whether we are dealing with tyres or with the McKenna Duties, one great principle is involved in this question, and that is whether it is desirable to impose any form of Protection whatever on any lend of article coming into this country. In this case the article under consideration happens to be tyres.
Why should we impose a protective duty on tyres and, not on many other things? I do not wish to seem to be encroaching on a subject which has been ruled out of order, but the answer given to that question is that this duty was a part of the McKenna Duties. If hon. 285 Members opposite were really going to have Protection, it is quite obvious that they should start, not with things like this, but with agriculture, or something of that sort. Why is it that we have these protective duties on a certain number of articles, thereby imposing a hardship on many trades and industries which, according to hon. Members opposite, are most in need of Protection? It is going to make it harder, for instance, for the farmer who has a motor car; it is going indirectly to increase the cost of his car. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say he has been assured by the traders that there is not going to be any increase in cost, but it is quite impossible to argue that a protective duty will not ultimately increase the cost, except, as I am quite willing to concede to the right hon. Gentleman, in certain circumstances. For instance, it may be that the price is going to fall in any case, and, if at that moment you put on a protective duty, then, instead of the price falling, it may remain as it is. I think many of the articles on which the Government have imposed duties have been in that position. The duty has been imposed at a time when, probably, the price would have fallen, and what has happened has been that the price has remained stationary. Then hon. Members opposite have said that that proved that the argument used against the protective duty was false. It seems to me that the object of a protective duty is only obtained if the price of the article is raised, because, if the price of the article in this country is not raised, the protection will not be sufficient to keep out the article from another country. Ultimately, the cost of a protective duty must fall in some way on the consumer, and I should be glad to see any arguments adduced from a large number of cases that prove that to be false.
If you once arrive at the principle that goods are going to cost more, then, if certain articles are taken, one here and one there, a hardship is bound to be inflicted. Hon. Members may say that, as the duty has been imposed on motor cars and certain other things, therefore this duty ought to be maintained, but that is really no argument. Some of these duties which are now protective were not really imposed as protective duties, but were imposed with the object of keeping out certain goods which were luxuries, and which at that time were 286 not wanted in this country on account of the effect on the exchange and the monetary position. Hon. Members opposite have often taunted those who introduced these duties, and who are Free Traders, with not having held to their principles, but to judge anyone upon action taken during the War is hardly fair, and in any case it is quite legitimate to say that the object was really not protective, but that it was a purely War measure designed to keep out these goods. We have already been told that two or three factories are going to be started in this country, and it may be that hon. Members opposite will say that so many more people have been found employment. On the other hand, it must always be remembered that this will have an effect on certain other trades. Supposing it were possible to realise the idea of certain hon. Members that everything could be provided in this country, our shipping trade and many other trades would inevitably have to suffer, and hon. Members opposite would find it exceedingly difficult to prove that that was not the case. I object to any form of Protection, and it is on that ground that I oppose this Clause.
Possibly other Members of the House, like myself, have received a protest on the question of motor taxation, not, I think, directed specially to this particular tax, but to the imposition of taxation on the motor industry generally. It came from the National Read Transport Employers' Federation, and it was sent to other Members of the House as well as to myself some three or four months ago. Certain figures are quoted, supplied by the Ministry of Labour, in reference to the number of wholly unemployed persons registered as motor drivers, chauffeurs and so on. The number for London in 1926 is given as 2,275, and that number had increased in the following January, about a year after, to 2,643, or an increase of 18 per cent., while over the whole of Great Britain the increase was 15 per cent. That has been the effect in the motor transport industry, and it is also the effect which will be produced upon industry generally. Hon. Members opposite argue that factories are being brought here, and employment is being found, but the effect must inevitably be that the shipping and transport industries will suffer if any large measure of protective tariffs is introduced. I 287 know that this duty in itself is a very small thing. We were told in the Budget statement that the total sum for this year is only something like £700,000, but the underlying principle remains the same, and it is on that ground that I oppose the Clause.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI think it would he as well if the Committee could come to a decision as to the reason for imposing this particular tax. During the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, replying to some observations that I made, was good enough to say that all I had done was to trot out the old Free Trade argument, and that, therefore, he did not propose to waste the time of the Committee in answering it, because he thought that the Committee and the House were rather tired of this line of argument. I do not quote that in order to enter a complaint against the Financial Secretary, but I want to examine this particular duty from the point of view of the Protectionist case. It does not seem to me that there is a single valid reason for this particular duty. It is true that the Financial Secretary said just now that the reasons for exempting motor tyres from the general scheme of taxation in regard to motor cars were special reasons existing at the time, and that they have now ceased to operate. It is equally true that the reasons for all these duties have ceased to operate. I am within the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) when I say that, at the time when those duties were imposed and when tyres were exempted, neither revenue nor Protection was concerned, but what was sought was the prohibition of certain imports for certain specific reasons. If, therefore, the argument of the Financial Secretary is to hold good, that the time for the exemption has passed, that argument applies equally to the whole range of these taxes. I want to inquire into the particular reason why this tax is imposed. Is it, in fact, imposed for purposes of protection? On the occasion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, a speech was made by the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson), in the course of which he said: 288
The industrial world is pleased to see that the pottery industry and the motor tyre industry have received consideration at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the presens Budget, but industrialists are disappointed to find that more use has not been made of the Safeguarding of Industries Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1027; col. 1484, Vol. 206.]
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDThe hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Berner), as usual, reinforces my argument. There is no more useful Member of the House than the hon. Member for Macclesfield for certain purposes. I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the simple question: Is this tax introduced from that point of view, or is it not? Is it intended and meant to be a Protective tax, or is it not? If it is meant to be a Protective tax, then I say that there is no industry, or, at any rate, there are few industries in this country which are less in need of protection than this particular industry. I know the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) about the setting up of foreign factories in this country, but let me remind him that as long as a year ago arrangements were made for setting up factories in this country by practically every one of these foreign companies. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member may say it was intelligent anticipation, but I do not think it was. I think it was the exigencies of trade. But, leaving that aside for the moment, is there any reason at all—even if one accepts the Protectionist position—or any conceivable excuse for giving a protective duty to the industry? Let me again quote the hon. Member for Darwen on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when he quoted a statement made by the Chairman of the Dunlop Rubber Tyre Company at the annual meeting of that company early in this year. His quotation was as follows. It is the Chairman of the Dunlop Company who is speaking:
Coming down to the future, our main revenue comes from the sale of tyres, and during the first three months of the present year our sales have consistently beaten all previous records. Our principal factories are working at the greatest pressure, and it is with the greatest difficulty that they are able to meet the demands placed upon them, and exceptional efforts are being 289 made to relieve the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 19th May, 1927; col. 1485, Vol. 206.]Here is an industry which has only recently undergone a drastic reconstruction after being vastly overcapitalised, which on the statement of its chairman is working at the highest possible pressure and cannot fulfil a single additional order and can hardly meet the orders it has got, and yet this is the industry which is singled out for protection.May I ask the indulgence of the Committee to trouble them with a very few figures dealing with the imports and exports of tyres? I am going to take five years, and I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is in his place, because reference has already been made to his Budget—that very good Radical Budget of 1924, and I am going to offer a further testimony. In 1922 the exports of British tyres were worth £2,000,000. The total exports, including re-exports, were —2,300,000. The total imports were —4,250,000 or, using an expression which is commonly used, the balance of trade against this country with regard to tyres was very nearly £2,000,000 in value. In 1923, the balance of trade against this country was £1,300,000. Then came the right hon. Gentleman and in 1924, for the full year, the balance of trade was £158,000 in favour of this country.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIt only operated for six months of the year in 1925.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDThe next figure will confirm what the right hon. Gentleman says. The balance of trade in regard to ingoings and outgoings of tyres of all sorts in 1925 was £360,000 and in 1926 was £349,000 in our favour. There is very little doubt if it had not been for the industrial disturbances of last year that balance would have shown an increase on the year before.
§ Sir H. CROFTMay I ask the hon. Gentleman to give the figures of the imports for 1924 and 1926?
§ Mr. CRAWFURDThe figures of the imports for 1924, in value, is £3,037,000 and in 1926 £4,849,000. During the same two years the figures for British exports 290 were £2,730,000 in 1924, and in 1926 £4,525,000—a vastly greater increase, proportionately, than the increase in imports. If there was ever a case for the protection of an industry, it is not in regard to this industry, and I find it very hard to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is really introducing this, at any rate, in his own mind or with his own consent, as a measure of protection.
May I turn for a moment to what the right bon. Gentleman himself said when he made his Financial Statement? After detailing with, let us say, a colourable amount of accuracy, the history of the exemption of tyres from the ordinary run of these duties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was an anomaly that out of all the accessories of motor cars tyres alone should be exempted and he said:
I propose, alike in the interests of symmetry and revenue, to rectify this anomaly and to perfect the work of Mr. McKenna and his colleagues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1927; col. 89, Vol. 205.]Therefore, as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, it is not a question of a protective tax, but a question of a tariff in the interests of revenue and symmetry. I have not the slightest doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman sees fit to reply to this discussion, that he will have some very interesting definitions of symmetry. What he means by symmetry I do not pretend to know. I have never heard of a symmetrical tariff. I have heard of many kinds of taxes, but never of a symmetrical one. When we talk of a revenue tax we do know more what we mean and have some common ground. If this tax was imposed in the interests of revenue, then I submit to the right hon. Gentleman the simple proposition that he should have conformed to the definition of a revenue tax which he himself has offered and defended upon thousands of platforms in this country, namely, that a revenue tax should be a tax imposed not only on the foreign article which enters, but should be accompanied by a countervailing Excise duty on that which is made at home. If the figures I have produced give a true picture—and, as far as I know, they do—of the state of the tyre industry in this country, it is a monstrous thing that this particular industry should have been singled out to be helped at the expense of the rest of the country.291 I am not going to dwell upon this point at any length, but I am going to remind the right hon. Gentleman once more of the pledge with which this Parliament began, that there should be no general attempt to introduce Protection during its lifetime, and, further, I would remind him of the subsequent words of the Prime Minister to the effect that no industry should receive any measure of protection unless by means of the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries.
§ Sir H. CROFTAnd by analogous measures.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDSurely there is nothing analogous to safeguarding in this? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member remembers the terms of the White Paper which set out the conditions, and there is nothing in the tyre industry which corresponds to those conditions by which alone any industry could even ask for a measure of protection under the safeguarding machinery. Bearing that in mind, it does seem little less than an outrage that this particular article and industry should have been singled out for a Protectionist measure. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
§ Mr. HILTONI hope the Committee will bear with me for a few moments because this is a subject which is very near to my heart, both politically and commercially. I have not heard a single argument which would prevent me from supporting this Clause. The argument used is the same old stereotyped argument that we get from the Free Trade benches. I have listened to Free Trade discussions and taken part in them for the last 17 years, and I have not heard anything new. I should like to devote myself not to the general application of Free Trade principles as regards this matter, but to its actual application to the manufacture of tyres. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is not in his place, because he is very keen on shipping. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] It cannot make the slightest possible difference to shipping, because everything that is contained in the tyres is imported in its raw state. The composition of a tyre, speaking from a financial 292 standpoint, is half cotton and half rubber, both of which are imported from our Colonies or from Egypt or the United States. When that cotton or rubber has been brought to Lancashire, it is for us to make it up. The cotton is spun, and in the spinning we use the finest, strongest and best cottons that are grown in the Sudan and Egypt. To-day we in Lancashire are spinning more than ever, and I take no account of the figures of value given by the hon. Member who last spoke, because in 1921 the price of cotton was twice the price to-day and the figures are very misleading. The number of people employed in Lancashire on spinning cotton into fabric is more than twice as large as it was in 1922.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWithout a tariff.
§ Mr. HILTONIt was the natural growth of engineering and the fact that motor cars are being made every week and that there are over 5,000,000 tyres used per annum. The average weight of cotton in a motor tyre is, approximately, just under 3 lbs. As a general principle, I submit that if we do not buy tyres made at home and thus keep the work at home it will be a foolhardy policy. It is better to keep your workpeople working even if you have to pay a penny more, though it is not proved in this instance that you have to pay more. Only last week a large firm—I am not advertising any particular firm—placed an order for 100,000 cotton spinning spindles and 600 looms, and the necessary preliminary machinery to erect a mill in Castleton. That will employ engineers in Lancashire and goods will be made in Castleton, thus employing another thousand Lancashire workmen on this particular job. I may point out, as has already been pointed out, that during the development of the manufacture of tyres in this country many millions of pounds have been lost by foreign competition and by dumping. I was in America in 1919 and I bought a tyre which was very satisfactory, but I came over here and bought the same tyre much more cheaply than I could buy it in America. At that time there was, near here in Middlesex, a company with £2,000,000 capital trying to make this particular tyre. That company no longer exists. There was also in Scotland 293 one which went under. I think it is the bounden duty of the Government to make the first consideration not the exact price that the wealthy man has to pay for the tyre, but that our work-people, who can make tyres which are better than any other tyres in the world, should be fully employed at high wages. I think it is the duty of all Members on this side to support this Clause.
§ Lieut.-Commander BURNEYI would like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having introduced this duty on motor tyres. I pressed him last year to introduce such a duty with an object very different from that mentioned by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. Crawfurd), namely, with the object of getting cheaper tyres in this country. Some arguments put forward by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow suggested that hon. Members in some cases will not take into account quantity so much as value in considering the effects of a duty. Almost the whole criterion, surely, is the actual output in numbers. If the output in numbers could be made greater, the price would naturally tend to become lower. I had a very great confirmation of that only 10 days ago, when I was talking with the president of the largest of the American motor tyre companies, who was over here selecting a factory to put down in this country because of this duty. The figures he gave me were rather startling. In his factory they have turned out 66,000 cases a day, whereas the Dunlop Company, which is by far the biggest manufacturer in this country, is doing under 16,000 cases a day, including all its American business. When you get output on that scale, it is impossible to compete unless you can manufacture in this country on something approaching the scale on which they are manufacturing in America. It was the opinion of the gentleman whom I have mentioned that it would be cheaper for him to manufacture in this country than to transport his tyres over here; that is to say, that he would not alter his price, but that he would be able to produce more cheaply. When it conies to a consideration of duties, if the Government—and I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very lukewarm supporter of any duty from a protective standpoint—would really consider the kind of article, I 294 believe that if all the articles that could be manufactured by mass production methods were protected, we should not only get the articles cheaper here, but we should also greatly increase our export trade.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThe hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton), who spoke from personal knowledge of this industry, began by saying that most of the arguments against this duty that he had heard were old, stereotyped, and antiquated. I am afraid that, in spite of the personal knowledge contained in his speech, exactly the same comments could be made upon the arguments that he used. His first argument was that, as a result of this duty, certain new factories were being established in his area, factories which, I think, represented capital coming in from abroad. The same argument was used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that this duty is inducing foreign manufacturers to establish businesses in this country. How stereotyped, how familiar, how stale that argument is, and how often has the answer been given! We do not deny that, if you put a tariff upon some particular industry, you will attract capital into that industry, whether from home or from abroad, but you will do so only by inflicting a greater proportionate injury upon the other industries in the land. You can have no better example of that truth than this particular duty which we are now discussing. It is proposed to impose a duty upon the importation of motor tyres.
The hon. Member for Bolton himself practically told us that, as a matter of fact, this is one of the most prosperous industries in this country, and that in Lancashire the amount of cotton which they were spinning for the fabric of motor tyres was twice as great as it was in 1920. That is the industry which is going to obtain the advantage, but what about the other industries of this country? What about engineering? What about iron and steel? What about cotton? What are those industries asking for? Every time any speech is made on their behalf, those industries tell us that the one thing which this House can do to assist them is to help them to lower their costs of production. They are industries dependent upon export trade, and they insist that, unless they can 295 reduce their costs of manufacture, and so bring down their prices, they cannot hold their own in the competition with rivals in foreign markets. That is our argument. What is the effect of this duty on those industries?
§ Sir H. CROFTNone at all.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHMotor tyres are practically a raw material. Directly or indirectly, motor tyres enter into the cost of production of practically every manufactured article in this country. I have worked it out in the case of some cars with which I am familiar, and I remember that the Secretary of the Automobile Association himself, when this duty was proposed, said that the duty upon quite a small horse-power car would amount to £15. What will the duty be upon motor lorries used for business purposes?
§ Sir H. CROFTDoes the hon. Member suggest that the price of home-made cars has gone up?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThe duty has been imposed only for a few weeks so far, and how can we tell until we have had some time in which to judge the results? The answer to the hon. and gallant Member has been given by the one man in this Committee who speaks from experience, and that is the hon. Member for Bolton. He did not tell us that this was going to reduce the price of motor tyres. He said, "What does it matter if you increase the price of motor tyres by a penny or so? Why should the Government consider the price of motor tyres provided you give employment to the men who are making them?" But let us take it on broader grounds. If it be true, as hon. Members argue, that a tariff on these articles is not only going to leave their price the same, but is actually going to reduce it, then why is the Safeguarding of Industries Act opened by the statement that no tariff must be imposed upon any article of food or drink? Why, in case after case, when hon. Members are introducing these Safeguarding Duties in this House, if some portion of the import is specially important, is an exception introduced into the Safeguarding Duty itself saying that that shall have no tariff put upon it?
§ Sir H. CROFTAncient prejudice!
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHTake cutlery. When we were discussing that duty, we found a special prevision that knives that were necessary for surgical purposes and knives that were part of the material used by other industries, were to be excluded from the duty. If it is going to lower the price of those knives, why not bring them in? As a matter of fact, in the whole of the argument for a tariff which is used by hon. Members opposite, I notice that in every tariff which they draw up they lay it down that the duty shall be imposed upon fully-manufactured articles, and that semi-manufactured articles which enter into the cost of production of articles at a further stage shall be excluded. Why? If the duty is going to lower their price, why not give the whole of British industry the advantage of imposing it on semi-manufactured articles. The fact is that hon. Members themselves do not believe the arguments that they put forward. They try to convince us, and they cannot convince themselves. That, then, is the reason why we assert that it is no argument whatever to tell us that foreign manufacturers are going to set up motor-tyre factories in this country. That will only be done at the expense of the other industries, which are suffering under burdens from which the motor-tyre manufacturers are free.
The result of this duty is very plain. Reference was made by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) to the recent speech made by the chairman of Dunlop's. They held their annual meeting a month or two ago, and I noticed that the chairman of Dunlop's, a firm which is going to get more advantage from this duty than any other firm in the land, pointed out that, in spite of the industrial difficulties and the general trade depression, he was going, as a result of last year's working, to ask the shareholders of Dunlop's to accept an increase of dividend from 15 to 20 per cent. This duty means that the great export trade of this country, which is staggering under heavy burdens and which needs assistance if any trade needs it, is going to be injured in order to add another five, 10 or 15 per cent, to the dividends of the shareholders in one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSONThe hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) mentioned Dunlop's, but he did not tell the whole story, and I think it would have been only fair to mention that there was a reconstruction of the capital of that firm, and that their £1 shares were written down to 6s. 8d. I cannot believe that, the hon. Member is really serious when he suggests that a duty on tyres is going to cause an increase in the cost of production of other manufactured articles in this country. It has not done so yet, and I shall be very interested to see whether it does. I think those arguments are futile. I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing in this duty. What I am much more concerned about is that our working people in this country should have a reasonably good wage for a reasonably good day's work, and this duty is producing that result. Hon. Members have said that concerns have set up factories in this country but that they have done so quite irrespective of these duties. I would ask the hon. Member who has just spoken whether he is aware that Pirelli are establishing a factory in Hampshire, and whether they ever had any intention to establish a factory here before these duties were imposed. Obviously, they had not. I represent a Division of Hampshire, and I am very glad that they are putting up a factory there, and I hope that it will employ a great many people from my Division and neighbouring Divisions. I look at the question from the point of view of the prosperity of the men who get work there. In my Division there are a great many people who are out of work, and it gives me a great deal of pleasure when I see employment found in these new factories. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward these duties, and hope he will extend them to many other industries. The safeguarding of industries is the one salvation of this country.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAre we not to have a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWe have had a very full reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There has been a full reply to the Amendment by the Financial Secretary to the 298 Treasury, and the Debate that has taken place on the Clause itself has been of such a general character, so evenly balanced, so well contested on both sides and so free from any intrusion into any novel sphere, that I hardly thought it was necessary for me to add to the already lengthy toil which the committee have before them by making a restatement of the reasons which led to the imposing of this duty. I would not have spoken but for the stern attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in asking for my intervention. I will first give an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Crawfurd). He asked me whether this duty is intended to be protective. I made it perfectly plain in the speech with which I introduced this matter to the House that there is no protective intention behind the re-imposition of this duty. It is imposed for revenue purposes and it yields a revenue of £700,000. It was also imposed on the ground of dealing with what is a luxury commodity to a very large extent. In this respect, of course, we have the authority of Mr. McKenna, the right hon. Member for Swansea West (Mr. Runciman) and all the leaders of the Liberal party, who proposed this tax as part of the McKenna Duties and only omitted it from the scope of those duties in view of some very special war-time arrangements which were made with manufacturers of tyres in the United States. It is a revenue duty, and it is, to a very considerable extent, a luxury duty. It is true that, incidentally, those who hold the Protectionist theory may derive some satisfaction from the workings of this duty, because it has had the effect of bringing certain foreign firms inside the ambit of the duty, and they have started works in this country and provide much employment, which gives satisfaction to hon. Members in whose constituencies those factories are put up.
§ Sir H. CROFTAnd to the country as a whole.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes. In addition, the mass production possibilities which are open to the great manufacturers, Dunlop's in particular, may very likely lead to diminution in the cost of production which will prevent any rise in prices in particular cases. I understand there 299 has been no increase in prices in regard to the cost of British tyres during the three months the duty has been imposed on Dunlop's tyres, except to the extent of 3⅓ per cent. of their production—in regard to a particular kind of case, to what I believe are called giant tyres—on 96⅔ per cent. of the production of Dunlop's, there has been no increase in the price, and we are deriving considerable revenue, while certain reactions of a favourable character have already manifested themselves in the labour market. In these circumstances, we are fully justified in completing the original design of the framers of the McKenna Duties, by putting this duty within the scope of the scheme.
It would be unprofitable at this stage to endeavour to extend the area of the argument beyond this particular duty. I have no wish whatever to embark at the present time upon theoretical discussions, but there is one point which I would make. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley, when in 1925 we imposed the McKenna duties, made a striking declaration of his intention, when he had the power, to repeal them at once, as he had done before. Words of this kind spoken by the right hon. Gentleman, with the authority of his party behind him, exercise a certain depressing effect upon the industries which are subject to the McKenna duties. I am informed, on authority which cannot be disputed, that considerable extensions of the Dunlop works would be undertaken but for the apprehension that the duties may, all of a sudden, be removed, without any regard to the merits of the situation, or the prices ruling in the home market, or a general study of the labour market, that suddenly the protection which is afforded to these commodities may be removed as a political manœuvre, to gain cheap applause from this or that quarter and to cement alliance with another political faction; that for that purpose and with that object the duty may be suddenly swept away and, in consequence, the whole basis of industry be violently deranged.
In view of this cloud of uncertainty which is hanging over the industry, some of the manufacturers, to whom hon. Members have drawn attention, are operating much more slowly than they 300 would otherwise have done. As I have been called upon by the right hon. Gentleman to intervene in this discussion, I am glad to have the opportunity of appealing to him to remove this uncertainty which hangs over the industry, and not to commit himself, because it may be many years before he is called upon to take the decision, to sweep away these duties, regardless of the interests of those who are concerned in them, employés as well as employers, and regardless also of the success or failure of the duties from the revenue as well as other points of view.
§ Mr. SNOWDENOne can understand the reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to take part in this Debate and that he did not rise until we insisted that we should get some explanation from him. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a consistent Protectionist record, but the right hon. Gentleman has a past in this matter, and it must be exceedingly inconvenient for him to swallow all his previous professions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was glad to have an opportunity of making his observations, but the funereal tone in which his explanations were made was hardly in consonance with the feelings of lightness and enthusiasm which he professed. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a revenue duty. He admits that it has a Protective effect. He made an appeal to me that if I should ever be in a position to deal with these matters, I should not recklessly undo the work that he has done.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMy appeal to the right hon. Gentleman was, not to prejudge the decision which will be taken, if and when that situation arises, and not to prejudge it in such a way as to exercise a depressing effect upon the industry.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI do not think, indeed I am quite certain, that anything that is likely to happen as a result of the operation of these duties is likely to demand any very close consideration in regard to them, because there are broad principles involved which would determine our action. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person in the world to advise somebody else not to take precipitate action. He says that if we repealed these duties it would be in order to cement some 301 alliance with another Parliamentary group on whose support we might have to rely. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person in the world to charge others with being actuated by motives which are not backed by conviction. He had not been in office three or four months before he repealed duties which had been imposed six or eight months before. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman then adopt the advice he now gives, and wait and see what was going to be the effect of the repeal of these duties? He did not wait. Why? Because it was necessary for him to bring forth some fruit that would prove to that party upon whose support he now depends that he was prepared to concede to them some part of their protectionist policy. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had had representations made to him of the disastrous effect that might follow if the duty upon motor tyres which he is now imposing were suddenly repealed. I know the source from which he got that information. That same source has made precisely the same suggestions or comments to me. But that same source said to me at the same time: "Ours is an industry that does not need Protection.' The right hon. Gentleman says that, although this duty may have a protective effect, his sole purpose in imposing it is revenue—incidentally, that it will give symmetry to the duty upon motor cars.
The right hon. Gentleman is concerned about symmetry. Why cannot he give other taxes symmetry? For instance, we were discussing in an earlier part of the proceedings the duty upon tea. Associated with tea is bread and butter. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman's desire for symmetry induce him to impose for revenue purposes a duty upon corn and a duty upon butter? Why?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLBecause precise pledges have been given against anything of that kind.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI waited for that retort. There have been precise pledges, too, that there should be no duty of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that there would be no Protection given to any industry except through the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries, but that procedure has not been adopted in this case, for this reason—that the British motor car industry has not made a case for a duty 302 under any one of the five heads they would be required to substantiate. We have had a quotation from the speech of the chairman of the Dunlop Company, that they are so busy that they cannot take any more orders. The prosperity of that company during the past several years has been one of the romances of British industry. It is quite true that they got into financial difficulties a few years ago and had to write off two-thirds of their capital, which ought never to have been called. The nominal value of their shares to-day is 6s. 8d., but he did not tell us what was the Stock Exchange quotation of those shares. I see from the Stock Exchange Report that Dunlop shares were very active to-day, and they are standing at 34s. 6d.; that is to say, that the Stock Exchange quotation is five times more than the actual paid-up capital, and yet this is an industry which is getting Protection from this Government. What has the Prime Minister to say about it? What has he got to say about the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposing through a back-door—
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Budget is not a back-door. It is very much a front door.
§ Mr. SNOWDENIt is by a back-door procedure, simply under the pretext of imposing a revenue duty. What has the Prime Minister to say about a proceeding like that? Is not that a violation of the right hon. Gentleman's pledges? Undoubtedly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say what he likes about this being a tax imposed for revenue purposes. Every speech that has been made by Members on that side of the House in the course of the Debate has welcomed this proposal as an instalment of Protection, and only, mark you, as an instalment. Practically every speech has finished with a peroration to this effect, that they hope this is only an earnest of more things that are going to come.
§ The CHAIRMANI must the right hon. Gentleman to come to his peroration, because he is getting on ground beyond tyres. I have had to stop perorations before.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI have no recollection of you pulling up any of the hon. Members.
§ The CHAIRMANThey sat down too quickly.
§ Mr. SNOWDENThere has been one point that has been raised by almost every speaker, and that is as to the effect the imposition of this duty will have upon the price of the manufactured article. Our Tariff Reform pundits have said that the effect will not be to cause an increase in the price with one single exception. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) said it did not matter if the price were increased. Is it the contention, not merely in regard to this particular case, but it is the contention of Protectionists in this House that a duty upon the imported commodity does not increase the price of the corresponding home article? May I state in a word or two what our view of that matter is?
The object of protection is to encourage home industries. The means by which you attain that object is that you so arrange import duties that the prices obtained in those industries are increased. If industries are encouraged it is by raising prices. That, in a nutshell, is Protection properly understood.[HON MEMBERS: "No!"] Then hon. Members repudiate the greatest of living Tory statesmen, for that is a quotation from a speech by Lord Balfour. But I will call to my support the right hon. Gentleman himself. He said this afternoon, when he had to defend this duty, that an import duty did not necessarily and always raise the price of the corresponding article at home. When one of my hon. Friends said, "You are passing it on to the consumer," the right hon. Gentleman said last year—I admit it was in reply to an interjection, and perhaps he did not give the matter sufficient thought and care, hut, at any rate, when a man is thrown off his guard, the truth generally comes out—said, "Show me any tax where the consumer does not pay, and where the tax is not passed on to the consumer." That is the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his present Tariff Reform companions, and it shows that the right hon. Gentleman after all, although he may on occasion be content to give lip-service to Protection, may be compelled—of course, the right hon. Gentleman has on every occasion when he has proposed some protective Clause shown his contempt for it, and his contempt for the arguments that have been put forward by Members of his own party.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have no contempt for £700,000.
§ Mr. SNOWDENHe shows contempt for the protective effect of this proposal, and he has got a contempt for the arguments by which it is supported by members of his own party. Of course, this will pass, and I repeat what I said when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to re-impose the McKenna Duties. He is getting the finances of this country into such a desperate condition that his successor will be in a very difficult position indeed. It may not be possible in one Session of Parliament, and in the first Budget, to undo the mischief that the right hon. Gentleman is doing over a period of three or four years.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLHear, hear !
§ Mr. SNOWDEN"Hear hear," the right hon. Gentleman says. That is part of the policy of this Government, not only in regard to this matter but in regard to many other matters. They are creating a situation in which any Labour Government which succeeds will have to spend perhaps one or two Sessions of Parliament in undoing the mischief that this Government has done.
§ Mr. SNOWDENTherefore, they think that during these one or two Sessions we shall be prevented from coming out with some of the bigger and more far-reaching reforms—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is going far beyond tyres.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI think it is relevant in this respect, that this is one of the difficulties they are putting in the way of the next Labour Government. The Chancellor of the Tory party may rely upon it, that at the first possible practical opportunity this duty and other protective duties the Government are proposing will be repealed.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee proceeded to a Division.
§ Miss WILKINSONOn a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Can you explain to the Committee what we are proposing to do? Are we engaged in a Division?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member may only speak covered when a Division has been called.
| Division No. 219.] | AYES. | [8.0 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Fairfax, Captain J. G. | Meyer, Sir Frank |
| Agg-Gardner, Ht. Hon. Sir James T | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw |
| Albery, Irving James | Finburgh, S. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Moore Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Fraser, Captain Ian | Moreing, Captain A. H. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Nelson, Sir Frank |
| Atkinson, C. | Gates, Percy | Neville, Sir Reginald J. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Balniel, Lord | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Gower, Sir Robert | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Barnett, Major Sir Richard | Grace, John | Pennefather, Sir John |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Perkins, Colonel E. K. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Perring, Sir William George |
| Bennett, A. J. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Pilcher, G. |
| Berry, Sir George | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Preston, William |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Radford, E. A. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Raine, Sir Walter |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hammersley, S. S. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Harland, A. | Reid, D. D. (County Down) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Harrison, G. J. C. | Remer, J. R. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hartington, Marquess of | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. | Haslam, Henry C. | Rice, Sir Frederick |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hawke, John Anthony | Ropner, Major L. |
| Buchan, John | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) | Rye, F. G. |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Burman, J. B. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hills, Major John Waller | Sanders. Sir Robert A. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Hilton, Cecil | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Savery, S. S. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | HolbrooK, Sir Arthur Richard | Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Holt, Captain H. P. | Shepperson E. W. |
| Cassels, J. D. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. | Staney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Chilcott, Sir Warden | Hume, Sir G. H. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Christie. J. A. | Huntingfield, Lord | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hurst, Gerald B. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Sprot, Sir Alexander |
| Clayton, G. C. | Jacob, A. E. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Steel Major Samuel Strang |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Jephcott, A. R. | Streatfeild, Captain S. R. |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. |
| Cope, Major William | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Couper, J. B. | Kindersley, Major Guy M. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lamb, J. Q | Templeton, W. P. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Long, Major Eric | Tinne, J. A. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. | Looker, Herbert William | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Lougher, Lewis | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Lumley. L. R. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Dawson, Sir Phillip | Lynn, Sir Robert J. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Warrender Sir Victor |
| Drewe C. | McLean, Major A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Macmillan, Captain H. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | McNeil, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Wells, S. R. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. |
| Ellis, R. G. | Malone, Major P. B. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.) | Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Williams, Com. C. (Devon Torquay) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 119.
| Windsor-Clive, Lieut.- Colonel George | Womersley, W. J. | |
| Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Wise, Sir Fredric | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. | Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain |
| Withers, John James | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. | Margesson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardle, George D. | Rose, Frank H. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Harris, Percy A. | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Amman, Charles George | Hayday, Arthur | Scurr, John |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, Walter | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillsry) | Hirst, G. H. | short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Barnes. A. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Smile, Robert |
| Batey, Joseph | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | Snell, Harry |
| Briant, Frank | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Broad, F. A. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Stewart J. (St. Rollox) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Kelly, W. T. | Strauss, E. A. |
| Clowes, S. | Kennedy, T. | Sullivan, J. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Kirkwood. D. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Lansbury, George | Thurtie, Ernest |
| Connolly. M. | Lawrence, Susan | Townend, A. E. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lee, F. | Variey, Frank B. |
| Crawturd, H. E. | Lindley, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Lowth, T. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Dennison, R. | Lunn, William | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Dunnico. H. | MackInder, W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | MacLaren, Andrew | Welsh, J, C. |
| Fenby, T. D. | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Wiggins, William Martin |
| Gardner, J. P. | March, S. | Wilkinson. Eden C. |
| Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. | Morris, H. H. | Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Williams, David (Swansea. E.) |
| Gillett, George M. | Mosley, Oswald | Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Gosling, Harry | Murnin, H. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Palin, John Henry | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Graham, Ht. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Windsor. Walter |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | Wright, W. |
| Groves, T. | Potts, John S. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Grundy. T. W. | Riley, Ben | |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich) | Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Haves. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) |