§ Amendment proposed [2nd July]: In page 3, line 10, after the word "or," to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or:"—[Miss Lawrence.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. KELLY
When we had to close our discussion on Monday night, we were dealing with this Amendment and discussing what was intended by the Government with regard to Clause 3, Sub-section (1). We were told by previous speakers that this Measure was intended to ease the burdens upon industry in order to cheapen production. I have yet to discover where we are going to find that opportunity of cheapening production. I could have understood the suggestion about cheapening production, if many of the items which had to be dealt with by industry were dealt with in this Measure; if, for example, industry were relieved of the enormous burden that is imposed upon it by the payments for insurance. I am not, however, allowed to develop that point on this Clause, and will take up one or two of the productive industries which are referred to in the Measure.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some idea of what he means by productive industry. With the exclusions which we find in Clause 3 it is difficult to understand his use of the words "productive industries." At what stage in the process between the raw material going to the place and the product being sold to the consumer does be intend to draw the line, and say that that portion of the place is no longer to be regarded as part of the productive industry which is to be de-rated? Take an engineering establishment as an 1402 example. Does he intend that every part of the establishment which is essential to the production of the finished article is to be de-rated? The right hon. Gentleman has had a close connection with the metal trades of Birmingham. Does he intend that the drawing office, and the offices, which are often situated in the centre of the buildings are to be outside his scheme of de-rating? He is excluding from the de-rating schemes places used for storage, and I would ask him whether, in those establishments which have their storage place in the centre of the manufactory, that part of the establishment is to be excluded from the benefit of derating?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think two main questions are involved in this and the next Amendment. This Amendment deals with non-industrial hereditaments in which there is no element of industry at all. The next Amendment raises the question of those hereditaments where there is some industrial element, though may be it is overshadowed by the other uses to which the premises are put, such as their use for storage or as a dwelling. I think it will be necessary to keep this Debate to the question of whether non-industrial hereditaments which have no composite element should come within the scope of this de-rating scheme, and that the question of composite hereditaments should be dealt with on the next Amendment.
§ Mr. KELLY
I recognise that, but I was endeavouring to find out why this difference is being made by the Minister between places which you term non-industrial hereditaments because they happen to be away from the factories and those which are on the same piece of land as the factories. I submit that if for the convenience of the sale of the products, and for the convenience of delivering them from those who manufacture them to the buyers, those establishments are not attached to the factory, are not adjoining, but are at different places, still they ought to be brought under this scheme for the purpose of de-rating. The difference between trade and commerce, if there be a difference, is one which I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to explain. At what point does he draw the line between the productive side of 1403 industry and the commercial side of it? That concerns particularly these words, "for the purposes of trade or commerce or." I submit that it will not be fair if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make a difference between a warehouse that is away from the factory and a warehouse which is on the same ground as the factory. I realise the limitations which are placed on one in dealing with this particular question, or I would have liked to raise the question of storage and of public undertakings, which were dealt with during an earlier stage of this discussion on this Amendment, no exception being taken to that when it was being discussed on Monday night. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to differentiate between a public electricity supply undertaking and a manufactory which is generating electricity for itself and at the same time is supplying it outside its own buildings. As an example of the latter case I may mention the Swindon railway shops, and a battery company in Bakewell, Derbyshire.
§ The CHAIRMAN
There is no doubt that public undertakings do not come within the scope of this Amendment. The question of whether in a commercial undertaking the warehouse, offices and so on, come under the composite cases, is one to which we shall come presently.
§ Mr. KELLY
Does this mean that if the offices are attached to the works they come under the de-rating scheme, but if they are away from the establishment, in some other part of the town, or in some other town, then they will not be included? As we proceed with this discussion it becomes clear that the whole scheme has not been too well thought out, and that the exclusion of the commercial side of businesses from this de-rating scheme will not help in its administration or give that assistance to industry which has been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary.
§ Mr. PALING
I shall be glad if either of the right hon. Gentlemen in his reply could deal with two cases which are of interest to constituents in my Division. I have in mind two collieries. One has what we call a land sale agency, which is practically on the property where the pit 1404 is situated. It is adjacent to the sidings. I imagine that would be included with the business of the colliery. There is another case where the sale agency is entirely divorced from the pit two miles away, and is, I believe, actually under another local authority, and this sale agency sells coal in small quantities. What would be the position in a case like that?
§ 4.0 p.m.
Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE
On a point of Order. May I call your attention to a ruling on 2nd July by the Deputy-Chairman? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) raised this point of Order:May I ask whether you will be able to accept any Amendments dealing with paragraphs (a) to (f)?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1928; col. 1106, Vol. 219.]and the Deputy-Chairman replied that the discussion could take place on the Amendment we are now discussing.
§ The CHAIRMAN
No, on the next Amendment, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided." That will, not by my selection, but of necessity, open up the question of the provisos. Those provisos are found lower down in the Clause. Therefore, the question of what I call the composite hereditaments, which are to some extent industrial, arises upon that Amendment. The present Amendment deals only with those hereditaments which are not industrial at all.
§ Mr. GILLETT
The question I want to bring before the Committee is that of the enlargement of the hereditaments which would come under this Clause if the proposed Amendment were carried. It seems to me that this Amendment brings out the fundamental objection that underlies the scheme which the Government are proposing. I cannot help thinking that it challenges certain very serious principles of taxation. Once you make a difference between various kinds of industries in the way the Government are suggesting, you really have to satisfy yourself that you are going to meet certain principles which are a part of the whole system of taxation. If we look into our general principles of taxation and consider where exemption has been granted, I think we shall find that it has been where it has 1405 been proved that there has been some special need. I might take as an illustration of what I mean the case of Income Tax, where you give exemption to a man who has family obligations as against a man who is single, and where you also find that a certain exemption is allowed for a man who is earning his living as compared with a man who is living entirely upon his interest. In the rating system, so far, the principle of exemption has been granted to agriculture because it has been recognised by this House at certain stages that agriculture needed special help. What I understand is the principle which the Government are proposing is practically an enlargement of the Agricultural Rating Act to certain other industries. Their proposal is limited to productive industries, and the Amendment we are supporting, if carried, would enlarge the whole idea of the Government, so that not only would the productive industries be included in this exemption, but also a large number of other industries.
I cannot help thinking that the proposal of the Government suffers somewhat from the same kind of difficulties that beset any Government which tries to back up and to give some special favour, either by lightening taxation, or by the gift of a subsidy or by some protective duty to an industry here and an industry there. We see in all Protectionist countries, as we have seen in the case of the safeguarding of industries in this country, that as soon as one industry has been specially favoured, a large number of other industries also want to be favoured. In the Clause we are now considering the Government propose to give special relaxation with regard to rates to a certain number of industries which they are trying to define as productive industries. I venture to say they will come face to face with the same difficulties that arise in the case of protected industries. Immediately you give assistance to one industry, another industry thinks it is entitled to the same assistance. For instance, the man who sells buttons does not see why he should not have the same assistance given to him as to the man who is making buttons, and the man who sells bread does not see why he should not have the same help given to him as to the man who makes the bread.
1406 I understand that on the next Amendment a number of cases of all kinds and descriptions which are on the boundary line of clearly-defined cases will come under discussion. I am, however, confining my reference at the moment entirely to those industries which are inside the favoured circle of the Government and those industries which stand obviously, at the present time, outside it, and I am trying to point out the difficulties that the Government will find even in these cases. I think when you take the smaller industries it will be found that it is far more difficult to give any sense of satisfaction to the industrial world such as will be given, perhaps, in the case of the larger industries. We have had instances given, and I will take the one best known, namely, the advantage that, this Measure will give to the brewing industry. We were told in the Debate yesterday on the Finance Bill that 1d. on beer would mean a cost of £25,000,000 to the brewing industry. It is quite obvious, therefore, that if the Government are going to grant something like £400,000 in relief of rates to the brewing industry, it is quite impossible for the brewing industry to pass that on to the consumer. It must go to benefit the profits of the concern.
§ The CHAIRMAN
We had this matter very thoroughly debated. We are now on the question of commercial hereditaments.
§ Mr. GILLETT
I was giving this as an illustration of the industries in the favoured circle, and I was trying to point out that, obviously, in this particular industry there was going to be a distinct gift to the brewing firms which they could not possibly pass on to the consumer. I was arguing from that, that it shows the weakness of the whole scheme in trying to limit the advantage which the Government are proposing to give to certain definite industries. That was the line I was trying to bring before the Committee. The weakness of the Government scheme seems to be that they are wasting a great deal of money on firms that do not need help, and that it would be infinitely better if they would enlarge the scope of their Measure so as to bring in other firms which really require it.
1407 There is one other point that I would like to make. It is a little difficult to understand how far the scheme is going to be a help to a number of those districts most requiring help. In some cases which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to help, it seems to me that the reduction in the assessment would limit the advantage, and I would urge on these grounds that this is one of the objections to the limitation proposed by this Clause. In the case of many of the industries, if they had been assessed a number of years ago, the relief would be much larger than at the present time. For that reason, I cannot but think that the differentiation which the Government propose is one that is bound to lead to very great difficulty, and when we come to consider the more difficult cases raised by the next Amendment, we shall find that the clear-cut cases which we are considering now, difficult as they are, will be as nothing compared with the smaller and more complicated cases to be dealt with then. My reason for supporting this enlargement of the whole scheme is that I think the proposal at the present time is exceedingly wasteful in many ways, and that the money could be better spent on some of the industries not now included in the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. ELLIS
There is one question I would like to ask the Minister in connection with a point already raised, and that is the relationship of certain extensions, as in the case of railways attached to mines or quarries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] They are not in any way intimately connected with the quarries, though they serve them sometimes a distance of seven or eight miles.
I want to put only one point. This Amendment widens the scope of the Clause by adding the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce," and I think, therefore, I shall be in order in referring to the application of this Bill to boot factories which are not entirely concerned with the manufacture of boots, but are concerned with trade and commerce as well. I 1408 do not know whether or not the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have paid special attention to the boot and shoe industry, but if they require any assistance or advice, I shall be quite prepared to help them and give them any knowledge I have got. Much of the multiple shop business carried on by the great firms goes right through the operation from the factory, through the distributive business to the retail shops. I know that the retail shops are quite out of the question, but these factories are concerned with making boots and distributing them. They have very large factories. I have one factory in mind which turns out, perhaps, 24,000 pairs of boots a week, and it may be sometimes up to 160,000. They do not make all those boots themselves. When they cannot cope with the demand, or have to deal with certain types of boots, they have to go to certain other factories where they buy boots, which they store in their own factories. This means that during some weeks these factories may be packed with goods and another week they are only half full. On some weeks they may be making more than half their output and will be primarily a factory, and on other occasions they may be going to other districts buying boots, and in that case they are primarily distributive wholesale. How are all these factories going to be assessed? Will it be on the weeks they are primarily factories or on the weeks when they are primarily distributive wholesale businesses. I hope the Minister will be able to——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member seems to be discussing matters which come under the provisos, such as the offices of merchant bankers, or anything of that kind, including warehouses and subjects of that kind, which are not in order on this Amendment.
I have covered the ground which I intended, and, whether the Minister replies now or at a later stage, I hope he will reply to these points. I know that this is not the Measure of the Minister of Health and is really the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are far too intelligent to have brought in a Bill of this sort.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I heard the discussion on this Amendment 1409 which took place on Monday night, and I have been waiting to hear a reply from the Minister of Health, particularly to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) about coalmines. I noticed the interest which the Parliamentary Secretary took in that speech. The question which was raised by my hon. Friend not only affects the coalfields, but the coal shipping ports. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) also intervened on that occasion and made a very interesting speech, and I think we ought to have some answer to the important points which were raised in the last Debate. This Amendment follows immediately after the words "mine or" in Sub-section (1), and I think it covers the points which I will refer to very briefly. In the Coal Mines Act of 1911, Section 22, mines have a very narrow definition, as follows:'Mine' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven.It is an underground working, and it is not in any way——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The question of mines is specifically provided for in another part of the Clause, and it is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) proposes to insert the words "for the purposes of trade or commerce or." I think those words cover the case of the coal trade. I understand that the whole of the mine itself will receive relief. It may be the intention of the Government to relieve the factories and workshops only, but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Ham North would cover my point. The question I am interested in is not so much the by-product plants as the plants in use at the ports. The Amendment would include coal-exporting plant and the plant used for loading coal in the ships. I would like to know if such plant would rank as part of a mine and as a productive hereditament, or would it be a transport hereditament——
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that is a matter which ought to be dealt with 1410 when we reach Clause 5, which defines all these hereditaments.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I was only referring to wharves as an example, and I think the words of this Amendment would cover that, because it would be a hereditament used for the purposes of trade or commerce. The coal export trade which has been suffering under terrible difficulties is now showing some signs of recovery. I hope the Minister of Health will reply to the speeches to which I have alluded, and particularly to the point raised about the coalfields. I speak with some knowledge of the difficulties of the coal-exporting ports, and I should like an explanation upon that point. Some reply is called for to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields and the hon. Lady who moved this Amendment in a speech which impressed the whole Committee, and which was listened to with great attention on both sides of the House.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain)
I think the lecture to which we have just listened from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) is entirely gratuitous. We have not replied to the discussion before, because we desired to hear all that could be said upon this Amendment, and this has led us not to interrupt the discussion prematurely until we felt that we were in possession of all the arguments. There has never been any intention on our part to allow the discussion to go without a reply, but we must be allowed to choose our own time, and that time must depend upon the course of the discussion and the arguments used. The observations which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, which were not out of order, were really an anticipation of the speeches to be made on various Amendments which we have not yet reached, and therefore I do not think they call for any reply at this stage except in so far as my general reply on the main question may cover some of the points to which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to draw attention. What is the substance of this Amendment? As the Bill is drawn, Clause 3 defines an industrial hereditament as oneoccupied and used as a mine….or as a factory or workshop.1411 There are certain provisos which limit that definition, broadly speaking, to industrial hereditaments, such as mines, factories and workshops. The Amendment proposes to introduce an entirely different class of hereditament, namely, one which is non-productive, which is not industrial, and which is commercial. Such a proposal might mean distribution. It might be concerned with merchanting or with banking. If this Amendment were accepted, it might lead to the possibility of relief being extended to all the new classes of premises which do not really enter into the Government scheme at all.
There are two grounds on which arguments have been based in justification of the Amendment. First of all, there is the general argument that if you are going to relieve productive industry you should not stop there, but you should relieve everything that is concerned with industry. That argument is a perfectly logical one, but at the same time it is one with which the Government cannot agree. Why do we not agree with that argument? I am afraid on this point that I shall have to repeat an observation which I have made before, and remind the Committee that every time you enlarge the field of rating relief you increase the liability of the Exchequer, and we cannot go on indefinitely relieving one section of the community after another without imposing fresh burdens upon the taxpayers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That argument is admitted, and it is recognised that either fresh taxation will have to be imposed in order to carry into effect this further extension of relief, or else the amount of relief which is already contemplated and which it is intended should be concentrated on productive industry must be diminished in order that it may be spread over a wider field.
Taking into account the fact that the fundamental objects of our proposals are the restoration of prosperity to depressed trades, the improvement of the prosperity of those trades which are not depressed, and the absorption of the unemployed, we believe that the money which we have at our disposal should be concentrated upon productive and not upon distributive industries. What is it that makes for the prosperity or otherwise of the distributive trades, or indeed of all the commercial 1412 trades which are not in themselves productive? Are they not all dependent for their success upon the prosperity of production? That is the sole source of the prosperity of all industry, and, if by assisting productive industry we increase its production and prosperity, and if by doing that we achieve the object which we have in view, we shall necessarily and automatically similarly increase the prosperity of all the other trades concerned. Therefore, I say that, in the considered view of the Government, it would be a mistake so to weaken and dilute the power of the instrument which we have in our hands as to spread it over this wider field, and that we can much more certainly and effectively achieve the purpose of helping all sections of the community by directing it to the one point where it will be most effective.
So much for the general argument that we ought to extend this relief to commerce and trade generally, and ought not to confine it to production. I think there is a second argument, and, as I understood it, this was really the argument upon which was founded the case of the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who moved this Amendment. It is that you cannot really distinguish between production and distribution, that the line between them is so fine that inevitably you are conducted from the one to the other, and that, if you attempt to draw any distinction, artificial or otherwise, you inevitably land yourself into anomalies and difficulties which make the whole scheme unworkable. That I understand to be the general argument of the hon. Member for East Ham North. The hon. Member does not approve of this scheme. She makes it her business to find out all the difficulties that can possibly be conceived in carrying out a scheme of this kind, to emphasise them, to stress them, to exaggerate them, and to try to argue that the scheme is impracticable. I think that time will show whether she is justified or not. For myself, I have no doubt whatever that we shall be justified in our contention that, while there are undoubtedly difficulties, there are no difficulties which are insuperable. I do not deny that there may be anomalies and inconsistencies, but we shall never get rid of anomalies and inconsistencies in this world, and, if they are only looked for with a hundredth 1413 part of the persistence and ingenuity of the hon. Member for East Ham North, they will be found always to be there.
The structure of the Bill, which the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) found so difficult to understand, is not, I think, really beyond his powers of comprehension if he applies himself earnestly to its consideration. We found ourselves upon the distinction between mines, factories and workshops on the one hand, and other kinds of hereditaments on the other. There, at any rate, you have something which is familiar in practice, and of which definitions have been on the Statute Book for many years and have served as the basis of the practice of the Home Office, without, as far as I know, giving rise to any difficulty. Then we are told that these definitions are limited by the proviso. I do not know that I should be in order, on this particular Amendment, in pursuing this subject very far, and I think that perhaps there may be an opportunity at a later stage of going into these questions; but, broadly speaking, we may say this, that you have on the one hand hereditaments which are productive admittedly, which are the seat of productive industry admittedly, while on the other hand you have hereditaments which may contain only some small element of production, and the question is where you are to draw the line.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is now developing a matter which really comes under the next Amendment. The question here is whether purely non-industrial hereditaments, such as commercial hereditaments, should be included.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
It is a little difficult to meet the argument which has been adduced, that it is impossible to draw a line between production and distribution, unless one is able to discuss the whole matter, and that is my difficulty. I do not, however, want to transgress your ruling or to put temptations in the way of any new speakers who may follow me.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps I might take the sense of the Committee on the matter. If the Committee, in view of the admitted difficulty, would prefer to continue this as a general discussion, 1414 embracing the proviso, I should have no objection, but, unless I have that assurance, I am bound to rule strictly on the matter. If it be the general desire of the Committee that this discussion should be drawn out so as to include the proviso, I am quite willing to allow it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Speaking for myself, I was tempted to try to get some enlightenment on one narrow specific point with which I think you have allowed the Minister of Health to deal, on the strength of what was said on Monday. The particular point that I raised with regard to coal-loading apparatus could not be raised anywhere else on the Clause, so far as I can see, and the Government, having put on a Guillotine, must not complain if we take what opportunities we can of raising specific constituency points. This is only the second time that I have opened my mouth on this Bill.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
On a point of Order. I would venture to suggest for the consideration of the Committee that it would not be quite fair now to change the ruling which has hitherto governed the speeches, because a good number of hon. Members have made their speeches under the limitations of that ruling, and it would not, perhaps, be quite fair now to allow the discussion to range over a wider field.
Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the case where there is what we call a washery situated among a group of collieries but some distance away from them?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I will take care that the hon. and gallant Member gets an opportunity of putting his point, but I gather that some objection is taken to bringing in the whole question of the proviso at this point, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman must confine the discussion to the question whether admittedly non-industrial hereditaments shall be included in the relief.
On a point of Order. I wanted to know whether a washery would come within the definition of a mine.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not a point of Order, but, if a washery is a commercial 1415 and non-industrial concern, I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be in order in replying on that point.
It is a necessary adjunct of the mine. The mine cannot be carried on unless the washery disposes of the small coal produced in the mine, and for that reason I desire to know whether it is included in the definition of a mine.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not a point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member later on can bring it into order as a specific subject, I will hear it, but it is not a point of Order now.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
In view of the decision that the whole question of the proviso may be discussed on the next Amendment, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I now draw my remarks to a close, merely saying this, that I think that all these conundrums which are being put are not very difficult to answer, because they really depend on whether or not these places are now technically factories or workshops. A place may not be a mine, but yet may be a factory or workshop. We have had the particular instance, which I think gave rise to some amusement, of the quarry. I was asked whether a quarry was a mine. A quarry, for this purpose, is not a mine, but it is a factory or workshop. I think that most of the conundrums that have been put in connection with establishments which are not literally part of a mine, but which are essential processes or parts of the operations which are carried on in the mine, depend upon whether or not they are factories or workshops, and probably the answer would be that they are. The case of the sales office, which was put to me by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), stands in a different category altogether. That is strictly within the terms of the Amendment that is now being discussed, and undoubtedly, under the plan which is adopted in this Clause, an office which is separated entirely from the works, and which is carried on for purposes, not of production, but of sale or marketing, would be excluded from the benefit of the de-rating. Exactly the same point occurs, not merely in the case of a mine, 1416 but in the case of, let us say, a manufacturing firm. There are plenty of offices to be found in the City of London which are the sales offices of manufacturing firms whose works are situated in the provinces—in Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, or wherever it may be. In those cases the works, being factories, would come under the Clause, but the offices——
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Yes, the offices in the works which are concerned with the operation of the works, and which are, therefore, a part of the production, would come in, except that, as the hon. Member will recollect, those parts of the factory which are not themselves a factory within the meaning of the definition in the Factory Act will come under the 10 per cent. allowance, and, if the value of such non-productive parts of the factory exceeds 10 per cent. of the industrial or productive part, the excess has to pay the full rates. I think it will be found, however, that in the vast majority of cases these properties will not exceed the 10 per cent., and, therefore, will be thrown in with the rest of the works and will get the benefit of the relief. Where, however, you have offices which are quite apart from the works, and which are concerned with sales, as in the case that was put to me, those offices would not come in.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I understand that this is the only Amendment on which we can discuss the general issue of the relief which the Government propose to give to productive as against distributive concerns. I should like to know whether that is so, because I am afraid I am a little in the dark. Will it be possible to discuss, on the next Amendment, that general question whether relief ought to be extended to distributive trades?
§ The CHAIRMAN
No; this is the right opportunity for that. The borderline cases come under the next Amendment.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Do I understand that it will be possible to discuss the Amendment with which I am concerned, and which proposes to include the retail shop? I understood you to rule that that matter was to be discussed under the next Amendment. I do not mind on which Amendment it is discussed, but I do want the opportunity of discussing the question of distributive industrial works on one or other of these Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The proviso deals with the borderline cases—the mixed hereditaments—and all such cases can be discussed under the next Amendment. The general question whether hereditaments which are admittedly not industrial or productive at all should be included, comes under this Amendment, and this is the proper place at which to raise that question.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is what I understood, and, therefore, if you will allow me, I shall make my observations on this Amendment to begin with. The Minister of Health said that we could not hope for any scheme which would be free from anomalies and inconsistencies, and I quite agree that it is beyond the wit of man to conceive of any scheme that would not allow certain anomalies. All that you can do, in any scheme introduced by a Minister into the House of Commons, is to get something which gives rough-and-ready justice, and I am not going to criticise the proposal of the Government from the point of view of pointing out little anomalies that will exist. If we adopted any other principle, there would still be anomalies. But when the Minister of Health says that his reason for not proposing to extend the relief to distributive trades is that he has not the cash, I think his answer is inadequate, even granting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no money to spare. He says that it would be necessary either to get more cash from the Exchequer or to reduce the relief given to productive enterprises. Surely, there is a third method, and that is to use the money for the purpose of relieving those cases where there is the greatest need, whether they be productive or distributive. If the Minister of Health had adopted a method of that kind, even with the cash that he has at his disposal, I suggest to him and to this 1418 Committee of the House of Commons that it would have been far more helpful to the trade and industry of this country.
There are industries which stand in no need of help at all. There are productive industries which are not merely productive but are highly profitable. I forget what the figure is—it was mentioned, I think, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and there is a great deal of dispute regarding it—but I think it is estimated roughly that from £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 of this money will go to highly profitable enterprises. I do not say that money which is put into those enterprises is not helpful, but it is not necessary. It merely helps to swell the profits. It will not increase the prosperity of those enterprises in the least, whereas there are distributive enterprises in highly-rated areas which would benefit, and if the sum which is wasted upon these profitable productive enterprises were put into them, it would improve trade and industry generally. The Minister seems to assume that all you have to do in this country is to improve productive enterprises. But the distributive enterprises of this country are suffering, and they are vital to the general trade of the country.
All the Minister has to do is to work out what his scheme does for the great cities that are dependent upon distribution—the seaports for instance. I have made a great study of this White Paper. I have done my very best to understand it. I am not going into a general criticism of it. I am only going to use illustrations to make clear my general argument. I do not pretend, however, to understand it perfectly, and Ministers must not complain of that, because it has taken them three months to understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant. It has taken them quite two months to get a sufficient comprehension of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to do, to enable them to put it into something like intelligible writing. I do not complain. It takes a clever man to understand always what he himself really means, and when, in addition, he has to interpret the mind of another man who is equally clever and much more complex, then Heaven help him, if he is to explain what he intended. That is what the Minister has done. As I say, I an not complaining, but I do 1419 not pretend that I thoroughly understand it, and I may be corrected later on in my remarks upon this document, which is fearfully and wonderfully made.
Let me put two or three cases which illustrate this Amendment. I shall take cases of towns which depend upon production and cases of towns which depend upon distribution. I take the case of Burton-on-Trent. The whole business of that very busy centre in the middle of England depends upon production, and, there, the relief given to the town, as I understand this document, is on something like 36 per cent. of the whole of the rates. That is to say, 36 per cent. of the assessment of Burton-on-Trent will be de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. We come to Birmingham, which depends more upon production but also very largely upon distribution. There the de-rating is something like 18½ per cent. In proportion to the assessments of these two towns, Birmingham will get half what Burton-on-Trent gets. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that to his constituents. I take a constituency which depends almost entirely upon distribution—Newcastle-on-Tyne. In Newcastle-on-Tyne de-rating is only 12 per cent. of the whole, because you only de-rate productive enterprises and Newcastle depends upon its distributive enterprises. The distributive enterprises of this great city of the North will get nothing. Because there is no production inside that county borough—the production is all outside—12 per cent. only of the industry of Newcastle-on-Tyne is derated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including Armstrong's?"] I think Armstrong's works are outside. I am taking the figures in this document and certain figures which I have got. Newcastle-on-Tyne, as I said, only gets 12 per cent. of the whole of its assessment de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. Burton-on-Trent will get 36 per cent. of its assessment de-rated. Thus Burton-on-Trent will get three times as much in the way of relief for its industry as Newcastle-on-Tyne. If you come to a place like Oxford where there are no productive industries—unless you can describe the colleges as such—you find that Oxford would only get 3 per cent. de-rated.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
They are out side. I think they only have a garage in, Oxford. Liverpool only gets 15 per cent. Liverpool depends upon distribution and I think the same thing applies to Man Chester. I have not the figures here but my impression is that Manchester will get a very low rate of de-ratement and relief. Yet what is the good of saying that Manchester is not essential to the productive industry of Lancashire? It is quite as essential as the place where you have the mills. Therefore it is not a fair way of dealing with the proposition. I take another case from this White Paper which baffles me altogether. It concerns those very heavily rated districts where the rates are over 20 shillings in the £. In those districts if there are any collieries, if there are any blast furnaces they will be de-rated to the extent of 75 per cent. The tradesmen will get no reduction in their assessment, neither will the workmen. In the case of Birmingham I looked up what the workmen's cottages would get. It would work out at a relief of about 2s. to 3s. 6d. a year—I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, it is 2s.0½d. to 3s. 6½d. The principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding puzzles me.
Bedwellty has been notorious for the heavy rates which have crushed, not merely productive industry but distributive industry and also the cottages there. It will be found on page 55 of the White Paper under the heading of Monmouth. The reduction in that district will come to 1s. 7¼d. in the £. I take it, that is per head. The rate was 22s. 3d. and after the scheme has come into operation and after the payment of the special grant, it will be 20s. 7¾d. That is all that the distributive industries and cottages will get. Then take the case of Caerleon where the rates are not high and where there is no great industry. It is a quiet place and it makes very little difference to it, from one cycle to another, what happens outside. It goes on for ever. There the rate is reduced from 10s. 11d. to 7s. 5d. In the very heavily rated district the general reduction is only 1s. 7d. but in a district which is not at all heavily rated there is a reduction of 3s. 6d. in the £. The principle upon which this scheme has been worked out baffles me but there may be a complete explanation. It means that the distributive industries in Caerleon will get a reduction 1421 of one-third of their rates, although those rates are only 10s. 11d. in the £, but districts like the Bedwellty district where they have great difficulty in making ends meet—districts whose customers cannot pay and whose customers cannot buy—are only getting a reduction for these distributive industries of 1s. 7d. in the £. I give another illustration from the same district——
§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman must connect the instances which he is giving with the argument which he proposed to advance as to the distinction between production on the one hand and distribution or other commercial activities on the other. Obviously, he cannot go into a general discussion of the incidence of rating.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am not going to do so. I have only two more illustrations and they are on exactly the same point. I fully realise your ruling, Sir, and I assure you I shall do my best to keep within it and I cannot see why the hon. Member should object. I take the case of Risca. In that case the reduction is only 1s. 3d. in the £. That means that distributive trades in a very heavily rated district would only get a reduction of 1s. 3d. in the £ and in several other districts you will find reductions of three shillings or four shillings in respect of distributive trades. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman can defend the treatment, in this way, of the distributive trades which are essential to the business of the country. Let me give one further illustration which bears directly on the point before the Committee. What happens in these cases? I know these districts very well. At present the tradesmen there have to compete with people who come from great centres like Newport and Cardiff to sell their goods. These people come from districts that are much more lowly rated and much more prosperous. The traders in the highly rated districts have had the greatest difficulty in making ends meet during the years of depression. There 1422 have been a great many failures among them and they have had a severe struggle.
If the right hon. Gentleman were able to say that, by the rating proposals which he now makes, he would guarantee a revival in the trade of these valleys I could understand it. But supposing there is not a revival—and I do not believe in my heart that the amount by which he is going to relieve any of the rates is going to make a substantial difference in these districts—what will be the position? The position will be this. These traders will have to compete with districts where the rates are even further reduced. People will come there with their vans and their lorries to sell goods at the very door and they will pay no rates at all in those districts. In the districts where they are getting the reduction, it is very often, as I pointed out, larger than the general reduction which is made in the highly rated area—much larger if you take some of these districts. I say that is a very unfair proposition. The right hon. Gentleman complains that he has not the cash. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has doled out the cash for him. We are paying this year, and we are going to pay next year, and at the end of that time he is going to relieve these industries. After we have paid year by year, he is going to leave these distributive industries very often in a worse position than they were before. Although the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to see that they do not pay more, he only guarantees that practically for the first year. After the first year, there is a reduction in his grant, and the distributive industries may have to pay more.
What will be the position of the distributive trades? Every time there is an increase in the rate of the district the position of the distributive trades will be that they will have to bear a larger proportion of the increase than they did before. The case of Halifax was given the other day. A threepenny rate there before this de-rating proposal would produce what it will take a fivepenny rate to produce in the future. Who will pay that fivepenny rate? The distributive industries will have to pay it, and the result of this scheme will be that you will increase their burdens in these heavily- 1423 rated areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been selling the nation a pup on the instalment system.
§ Captain MACMILLAN
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has not given us quite the full vigour of the rhetorical style to which we have become accustomed by reading the alas far too abbreviated reports in the Sunday papers of the speeches which he delivers on Saturday afternoons. But he has contrived to do one very ingenious thing, namely, to make a speech for the purpose of a particular by-election from his place in the House of Commons. I cannot help thinking that he somewhat confused the issue which is really before the Committee, because he argued during the greater part of his speech the question as to whether one particular district or one particular locality is better treated than another under the Ministry of Health scheme which we shall come to in the autumn in the further development of this plan. What we are now discussing are the claims of the distributive trades as against those of the productive trades. We are not discussing the effect in any particular area as against the effect in some other area. We are discussing simply whether this particular relief should or should not be extended from the productive industries to the distributive industries. The right hon. Gentleman says that this rating relief is no good any way, and then he goes on to say that it is a monstrous thing that it is not given more extensively. And yet, after all, if it were given more widely it would be still less in amount. He thinks that it is monstrous that this rating relief which he said was useless any way, should not be given to the distributive trades as well as to the productive trades.
If the relief is so small and unimportant as he alleged it to be in respect of one half of the community, how can it be so great a grievance because it is not shared by the other half of the community? The real fact is, that neither he nor his party have ever attempted from the very beginning of this scheme to understand the basis upon which it is planned. Surely the truth is, that all the distributive trades depend for their final prosperity upon the prosperity of production and upon nothing else. The illustration that 1424 he chose of the seaport towns was a particularly bad illustration for this reason. There is more being done for towns like Newcastle and other great seaports under this scheme than for any other town. Not only is there de-rating of docks and the means of transport but there is the fact that after all, the distributive trades of those towns and the cottage homes in those towns, and every single person in those towns depend for their chance of a decent livelihood upon the prosperity of the productive industry from which, as the first and the primary source, they draw their real support.
It is only by the revival of these essential and primary industries that the distributive trades, the householders or any other part of the community can see any real increase in their prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to grasp the fact that the Government are proceeding upon the plan of throwing the whole weight and the whole measure of the support that they can give upon the first element—production. If we can do anything to make production cheaper and easier, we automatically cure the evils that beset the distributor and the householder. The right hon. Gentleman is bent upon retrieving the shattered fortunes of the Liberal party by appealing merely to the selfish interests of those who do not appear to be directly benefited. He is trying to reinforce the Liberal party from the rentier class, but I believe that this plan—developed as it is in this Bill and in the further stages to come—will appeal to the nation as a whole, and that the electors will not be swept away by this appeal to what may seem to be their selfish interests.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This opens up a very wide extension of the subject of the Amendment. I really do not see, if the hon. and gallant Member continues in this strain, how I can save an even wider extension of the argument.
§ Captain MACMILLAN
I do not wish to do anything to disobey your Ruling. I venture to point out that as regards this Amendment our opinion is that we are doing the right thing in conferring this benefit of de-rating primarily on productive industry, because we believe by limiting it to that front we shall be able to make a much wider and more useful advance, and that by that means 1425 we are in fact producing, or hope to produce, a chance for the revived prosperity of all the other industries which will be, if not direct, at any rate, indirect recipients and beneficiaries.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 199.1427
|Division No. 238.]||AYES.||[5.9 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Ritson, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hardle, George D.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Harney, E. A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scurr, John|
|Barnes, A.||Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James|
|Batey, Joseph||Hayes, John Henry||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Beckett John (Gateshead)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Briant, Frank||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Broad, F. A.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Bromley, J.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Snell, Harry|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Kelly, W. T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lansbury, George||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Lawrence, Susan||Townend, A. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lawson, John James||Varley, Frank B.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lindley, F. W.||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lunn, William||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Day, Harry||MacLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dennison, R.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Fenby, T. D.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Westwood, J.|
|Gardner, J. P.||March, S.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Maxton, James||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Gillett, George M.||Montague, Frederick||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gosling, Harry||Murnin, H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Naylor, T. E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenall, T.||Palin, John Henry||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Pethick-Lawrence, f. W.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Potts, John S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Groves, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Riley, Ben|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col, Charles||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)|
|Albery, Irving James||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Bullock, Captain M.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Burman, J. B.||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Dalkelth, Earl of|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Balniel, Lord||Campbell, E. T.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Duckworth John|
|Bennett, A. J.||Chapman, Sir S.||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.||Christie, J. A.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Bethel, A.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Ellis, R. G.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Clarry, Reginald George||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Fairtax, Captain J. G.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Falle, Sir Bertram G.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Cooper, A. Duff||Fielden, E. B.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Cope, Major Sir William||Forrest, W.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Couper, J. B.||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Cowan, Sir Wm Henry (Islington, N.)||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gates, Percy|
|Gower, Sir Robert||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Grace, John||Macintyre, Ian||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||McLean, Major A.||Sandon, Lord|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Savery, S. S.|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Making, Brigadier-General E.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Margesson, Captain D.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Mitchell W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Nelson, Sir Frank||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Nicholson, col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Nuttall, Ellis||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Oakley, T.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Waddington, R.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Pennefather, Sir John||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Penny, Frederick George||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Perring, Sir William George||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wells, S. R.|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Price, Major C. W. M.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Ramsden, E.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Rentoul, G. S.||Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Lougher, Lewis||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Luce, Major Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Lumley, L. R.||Ropner, Major L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lynn, Sir R. J.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Major the Marquess of Titchfield|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||and Captain Wallace.|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
§ Mr. HARNEY
I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to some observations which I made on the last Amendment when I raised a certain point, I wish again to emphasise that point, which I meant in all sincerity. I think that something will have to be done to alter the structure of this Clause, because the words "subject as hereinafter provided" mean that you carve out of what you have described as industrial hereditaments, a dwelling-house, a retail shop, a distributive wholesale business, storage, etc. My point is that you cannot fit within the description given in the Clause itself of "industrial hereditaments," any single one of the paragraphs mentioned in Sub-section (1), except, perhaps, paragraph (e). The Minister, from the layman's point of view, puts it this way: "We all know what a factory or workshop is. We all know the general concern so described, but you may find that in that general concern a portion which is a dwelling- 1428 house, a portion a retail shop and so on, and you may find that portion to loom so large as to make it primarily the real purpose of the concern. In such a case the whole concern is ruled out of the term industrial hereditaments. That would be all right if the definition of "industrial hereditaments" in the Clause covered the whole concern, but it does not. In Sub-section 2 the Minister draws the very distinction which I have in mind, because he says in regard to a garage:For the purposes of this Act any place used for the housing or maintenance of road vehicles shall, notwithstanding that it is situate within the close, curtilage or precincts forming a factory or workshop and used in connection therewith, be deemed not to form part of the factory or workshop, but save as aforesaid, the expressions 'factory' and 'workshop' have respectively the same meanings as in the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 to 1920.If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 for the definition he will find in Section 149 (4):Where a place is situate.1429 Then come the very words that are imported by the draftsman into this Billwithin the close, curtilage or precincts forming a factory or workshop is solely used for some purpose other than the manufacturing process or handicraft carried on in the factory or workshop, that place shall not be deemed to form part of the factory or workshop for the purposes of this Act, but shall, if otherwise it would be a factory or workshop, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop.There we have the definition which is given in the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901. That Act says that you look at the whole concern, at the close, the curtilage and precincts and you single out a part to find what is the workshop or factory and that part is the part of the concern in which the actual manufacturing processes or handicraft are carried on. That definition is made in the Factory and Workshops Act for a good reason and that is that you are there dealing with the safety of workers and there was no use in promulgating regulations to be observed in the storage portion, in the distributive portion or in the office and so on; but only in the portions where it was necessary to apply protection in connection with the mechanically dangerous processes carried on. Therefore for that purpose you narrow your definition of a factory and workshop to the actual place where dangerous wheels are spinning. That feeing the definition, you have already excluded a dwelling-house, a retail shop, a distributive wholesale business, storage and "any other purposes whether or not similar to any of the foregoing, which are not those of a factory or workshop." They are excluded from the Factory and Workshops Act. Therefore, the phrases which I seek now to exclude are surplusage and confusing, because a "factory" or "workshops" cannot contain a retail shop or a dwelling-house or the other things mentioned in this Subsection. The factory or workshop cannot be primarily used for a purpose which the very definition has already eliminated.
There can be no question as to the soundness of my argument. I am speaking in the presence of a highly intelligent lawyer, the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows as well as I do that in Courts of Justice, when Acts of Parliament are brought up the first thing that the Judge says is, "I must as far as possible give 1430 effect to the language that Parliament uses. Parliament here uses eight lines to carve out of the Factory and Workshops Act certain things. How can I carve out what never by any possibility could have been included? Therefore, I must not give to a workshop the meaning which I am bound by law to give." This Clause will lead to hopeless confusion, and I do press upon the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to consult the draftsman again and see whether it cannot be put right in the interests of everybody.
I come to what the Chairman has accurately designated as the true purpose of the Clause, namely, to deal with composite hereditaments. Assuming that the Clause carried out in language what is really in the Minister's mind, namely, that we are dealing with the whole factory concern, the right hon. Gentleman wants to say in regard to the whole factory concern that there will only be de-rating of factory concerns which are not primarily devoted to one or other of the specified purposes. Is it not a very dangerous thing to throw forth to the thousand and one surveyors and Courts in the country the duty of defining what he means by the word "primarily." Primarily may mean primarily in purpose, primarily in the amount of money made or primarily in the number of employés, primarily in extent, of space or in other ways. We all know of factories where the actual portion which needs protection under the Factory and Workshops Act is not 20 per cent. of the whole concern. I mentioned the other day that when I was at Carlisle, I visited Carr's biscuit factory, a huge concern, where I found that the place where they actually mix the biscuits and which is the true factory part, the part which is to be de-rated, is only a small portion of an immense concern. There is the distributive part at the other end, where the goods are packed and sent out to the wholesale trade. Is that primarily a storage place, is it primarily a distributing centre? That is a question which you might leave with the surveyor. Why use the word "primarily"? Why should you rule out, on broad principles, all relief to a real factory, although it is a producing place, simply because its primary purpose is distributive or retail?
1431 There are tens of thousands of bespoke tailors in the country, 25,000 altogether, and all well-dressed persons like myself go to them. How do they stand? It is true that they send out suits of clothes; but the cutter is upstairs. Are they to get no relief at all, although they are producers, simply because in conjunction with the business there is a shop window which says that their primary duty is to invite people to go in and give them an order. I understand that a deputation called on the Minister from these bespoke tailors, and that the answer given to them was sympathetic but guarded. It certainly conveyed the impression that no doubt Amendments would be raised dealing with this question and that the Government would consider them. I hope they will. The same remark applies to the bootmaker and the baker, whose case has been discussed ad nauseam. Let me put this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I am against the Bill, not because I do not think it is going to do good, but because I think a far better scheme has been evolved by the Liberal party. But we are dealing with the Government scheme now, and, as it must go through, we want to make it as far as we can a workable Measure.
Is not the reasonable thing, first, to define clearly and definitely what you mean by a producing factory; drop out your "primarily," your "dwelling-house," all these things, and leave it to your surveyor to say whether it is a factory or not, whether it is a workshop or not? He would be a fool if he said that a place was a factory where one suit of clothes was made in a back parlour and there was a frontage of 50 feet devoted to the selling of ties. Do not attempt to do it by bringing in the word "primarily" and all this catalogue of exceptions. Define clearly and definitely what you mean by a producing factory, and we shall know exactly where we are, and having defined clearly and without exception what your factory or workshop shall be, then in Clause 4 settle your derating proposals, and we should get rid of all these difficulties. The Government should reconsider the whole of these Clauses, and bring up a short Clause showing exactly what they mean by factories 1432 and workshops; then they could apply their de-rating proposals and get rid of many of their difficulties.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood)
My right hon. Friend and myself are much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) for the care and attention which he has evidently given to this matter, and I wish we could really dispose of it in the easy way that he has suggested. All we have to do, I understand, is to say to the local surveyor: "You do all this. We leave it all to you. You shall decide what is a factory or workshop; whether the smaller hereditaments should or should not be included, and we will abide by your decision." I wish that course were possible, but even if it were possible I do not think it would be acceptable to the very large number of citizens who are much concerned and interested as to whether they would come within the de-rating proposals of the Government or not. I do not think the proposal is even acceptable to the members of the Liberal party, because of the doubts which must spring up in their mind when such a proposal is made. The question of definition has been the subject of very considerable thought and attention, but I am quite ready to discuss further with the hon. and learned Member with regard to definition generally. Let me reply to the points which he has raised. They are of a technical character, but are rather interesting to the Committee. He challenged us on the scheme of definition in the Bill. In the first place, we say that:In this Act the expression 'industrial hereditament' means a hereditament… occupied and used as a mine or, subject as hereinafter provided, as a factory or workshop.The definition of a factory or workshop is not only well known to lawyers, but is also well defined in every local area in the country. Every employer to-day knows exactly whether his place is a workshop or factory by the operations of the Home Office and the Home Office inspectors. Therefore, from the point of view of those engaged in trade, this is a convenient method of approaching a definition, and it is a logical and scientific method. It is necessary, if you are to avoid a considerable amount of difficulty 1433 and expense, not only a waste of money, but a waste of time, to except from an industrial hereditament a large number of other premises of which the factory or workshop forms only a small part. There are a large number of hereditaments in which the factory or workshop is a very small part indeed, and, therefore, from the point of view of the operation of this scheme and on general principles, it is desirable that those industrial hereditaments which are primarily-occupied for the purposes enumerated in the Clause should not be included. In other words, every factory or workshop shall be included except those which are primarily occupied for the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (f). If you do not have this further proviso, you will include in your definition of industrial hereditaments all those premises which are primarily occupied as a dwelling-house or a retail shop. Take the case of a private dwelling-house which has a little room at the back used as a dressmaking room, or take the case of a retail shop, in some portion of which there may be a small machine used in the business; these would all come under the definition of industrial hereditaments if you did not have this further proviso in the Clause. It is for this reason that the proviso was inserted, and in the opinion of the Government it would be unwise and would defeat the whole object of the Government scheme if every little place which had a dressmaking machine at the back was able to come forward and say that it was within the definition of industrial hereditament and therefore claimed to have the relief.
§ Mr. HARNEY
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to address himself to the real point which he rather skated over. An industrial hereditament equals a factory or workshop; a factory or workshop equals a factory or workshop having the same meaning as a factory or work-shop under the Act of 1901; therefore, industrial hereditament is confined to that portion of the factory concerned which is engaged in the purely mechanical process.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The hon. and learned Member is not correct. A factory or workshop, as defined in the Factory and Workshop Act, is not confined to purely industrial hereditaments. When we come 1434 to examine the definition of a factory or workshop under Section 149 of that Act, we shall find that it does not mean only that exact portion where industrial work and machinery is going on. The definition is much more extensive. It includes very many other things. It includes certain rooms which are the subject of inspection by the Home Office and a great deal more than the actual places where the work and operations are being carried on. That again was a mistake of the hon. and learned Member when he thought that that definition was wrong. The definition is a more extensive one than he thought. When you examine what relief you get when the reference is to a workshop or factory within Section 149 of the 1901 Act, you get a much more extensive area for relief than you get by saying merely the factory or workshop itself. The employer will know the exact area for which he will get relief owing to the inspections of the Home Office. The hon. and learned Member did not read the whole of the definition. I invite him to discuss this matter with me, and I have no doubt we shall be able to come to some satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the suggestion which he has made; we value very much any suggestions which he makes in this connection. Then he criticised the word "primarily."
§ Sir K. WOOD
I notice that the hon. and learned Member has an echo in the hon. Lady opposite, for she cheers him. The word "primarily" has been inserted after very careful consideration, and I think it leaves the matter in its most practical form. It leaves the assessment committees of the country to come to a conclusion, as a matter of fact, whether an industrial hereditament is primarily occupied for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (f). It is a question of fact. We believe that the assessment committees will not have much difficulty in 99 cases out of 100 in coming to a conclusion on the subject. Anyone acquainted with the work and the personnel of assessment committees throughout the country appreciates that those committees in most cases know full well whether a particular hereditament is primarily used for the purpose of a dwelling-house or not. So you can test the definition by all the means which are set out in the Bill. For 1435 instance, there is the question whether the primary purpose is for use as a retail shop or not. I suggest that the method proposed in the Bill is a good way of dealing with the matter, because it leaves the decision to people who have local knowledge, and they have to give a decision not as a matter of law but as a matter of fact as to whether or not a hereditament is primarily used for a particular purpose. The only alternative is one which naturally we have considered, and that is to provide for a certain percentage instead of using the word "primarily."
§ Sir K. WOOD
I am again supported by the hon. Lady opposite. The suggestion is that 10 or 15 per cent. might be factory and the rest not, and that that should be the guiding principle. If we adopted that suggestion we should again be in very great difficulty, for a percentage might bring in its train many more hardships than do the proposals of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that, both from the point of view of the legal structure of the Measure and from the point of view of the method which we have adopted, the assessment Committees will be able to arrive at a decision, and that this is the most convenient method of approach. On the merits, and on the question whether a small dwelling-house should be excluded or a retail shop should be included, I could only say that that is a question which we have discussed again and again on this Bill. If we once began to distribute money over these millions of people—that is what it would come to—the whole of the money would be absolutely lost. What help would it be to the trade and industry of the country? Obviously, if you want to strike an effective blow at unemployment you must concentrate your relief. If I had the opportunity I would like to reply to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who left hurriedly, no doubt for other purposes, immediately after making his speech. I hope that that will not become a habit.
Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON
As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, my right hon. Friend had to go to an appointment upstairs, and it was with great regret that he left when he did.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The replies that I have given have been given with the intention of dealing seriously with the points that have been raised. If any hon. Member accepts the principle of the Government's scheme and wishes to give the best assistance to trade and industry, I suggest that he should not support the Amendment in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. F. K. Griffith) is in a very difficult position in relation to the Bill. His party has come out officially against the Bill, and yet day by day the industries of Middlesbrough are needing assistance. The hon. Member could not afford to have the relief distributed in this way. He wants Middlesbrough trade an industry to be assisted in the best possible way. It would be of no assistance to Middlesbrough to divide all this money between retail shops and private traders. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) also wants to make the best of the Bill. He appeared with a deputation which asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accelerate the operation of the Bill. If he is in that mood, which I hope is the mood to which all hon. Members are coming, I suggest that he should not press his Amendment further.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I desire to support the Amendment, because in my view the discrimination which the Bill proposes and which will exist unless the Amendment be carried, will not work. When I say that it will not work, I mean, of course, that it will not work satisfactorily. It may be quite possible for the Bill to become an Act and for it to be put into operation, but it will be no solution if the Bill when in operation fails to satisfy the people of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us that if the matter were dealt with otherwise, the relief would be dissipated. In reply to that statement I say that it is no good having a system of relief which will not work. It is better to have something, even if it be dissipated, that will work, than something which, while in his view it may be concentrated, will not work at all.
I wish to call special attention to the exclusion of the retail shops. I have on the Paper an Amendment dealing with that particular point, and as I under-stand 1437 that we shall have to give a silent vote on that Amendment, this is the place on which the matter can be properly discussed. The difficulty of discrimination comes into special prominence when the question of the retail shop is under consideration. In the first place you have the very large number of cases of retail shops which are partly retail shops and partly factories and workshops. The Mover of the Amendment dealt with some of these, and we had a very large number of illustrations given on Monday night, when another Amendment was being discussed. I would remind the Committee that it is not merely a question, as the Minister would have us believe, of a dwelling-house, with an occasional garment being made in a back room. This question often concerns large premises which are devoted to manufacturing work. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) mentioned the case of workers, as many as 500, being employed, and of the premises being classed as a shop and not as a factory because they were connected in one hereditament with a large frontage which was used for the purpose of a shop.
As the Committee has heard on several occasions, there are many illustrations of that kind. They refer to all sorts of trades, and incidentally they deal with one that has not hitherto been mentioned. I refer to the meat traders, who in some cases carry on large numbers of manufacturing processes and yet, because they are connected with retail shops, will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. Quite apart from these border-line cases, where everything will turn on the precise meaning of the word "primarily," I go further and contend that you cannot really discriminate between the productive and the distributive parts of industry. They all are really one and indivisible parts of the actual industry as a whole. In that connection I have received a strong appeal from the newsagents, who point out that as they read the Bill actual newspaper production will be de-rated under this scheme. I do not know whether that is correct or not; there seems to be some doubt about it; but in the opinion of the newsagents that is the case. But if so, while the newspaper firms that are producing the newspapers are to be de-rated, the newsagents are to get no relief. As a matter of fact 1438 the production of a newspaper goes on all the way from the editor's room to the time when the newspaper is in the hands of the reader. It is quite impossible to draw a line at one particular point and describe one part as production and the other part as distribution.
Difficulties of this kind are reaching us from traders throughout the country, and very strong protests are being made against the form in which the Bill is drawn. I have a protest from the chamber of trade in my constituency, which supports me in moving the Amendment to which my name is attached.
What is the answer of the Minister to these objections? He says, in the first place: "I admit that there are anomalies. You will always have anomalies. Anomalies always have existed and always will exist, and it is no answer to any particular proposal of the Government that it does not deal with anomalies which exist." It is quite true that you cannot deal with all the anomalies that exist, but this Clause of the Bill will create new anomalies, and those anomalies are not little ones; they are very large and very grave anomalies. Consider what the proposal actually does. You have two premises side by side, rated equally at the present time. When the Bill comes into operation one of those premises is going to pay four times the rates of its neighbour, because it happens to fall on one side of the line and its neighbour happens to fall on the other side of the line. They may be very similarly used. One succeeds in satisfying the surveyor that it is primarily used for one purpose and the other just fails to satisfy him. After that these two premises are rated one four times the rate of the other. Not only so, but the unfortunate person who fails to get any relief under this Bill will have to pay a very considerable part of the money which goes to relieve his neighbour, because in the retail shop, through the petrol tax, he will have to be finding the money with which his neighbour is being benefited.
I do not believe the English people will stand that unfair, discriminating anomaly. It is true the English people are very long suffering. They put up with a great many wrongs that they have. They will oven put up with a great many unfair injustices which exist between 1439 them and someone else. What they will not stand without very great protest is a new injustice being inflicted upon them of this kind which puts their neighbour, who in all other respects appears to them precisely similar to themselves, in a totally new position of advantage over them. That being so, I do not think the Bill will work out in the way its promoters suppose.
Another defence the Minister put forward is this. He says the very greatest advantage we can give to the retail shopkeeper is to benefit the producer. It may he true that the retail shopkeeper will have to pay in the first instance money which is to go to the producer. It may be true—I do not know whether the Minister will go as far as this but in our opinion it is so—that the actual rates to be paid by the retail trader will be enhanced. All that he suggests and more is to come back to the retail trader, because the producer will be benefited, and on account of the benefit accruing to the producer, in the long run the retail shop will benefit at the same time. That may satisfy the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary. I am not quite sure that it does. I am rather inclined to think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in common language, sold them a pup in this matter and they have had to adopt the animal, which they do not very much like. If they are so simple as to be satisfied with this argument I am sorry for them, because I am sure, though it may satisfy them, it will not satisfy the retail shopkeepers. They will say, rightly, "We have to pay this year the petrol tax in order that some time next year the producer may get some advantage out of this Measure, and if it is true that the producer gets advantage out of the Measure, and if, as a result of that, he extends his business and gives better wages we are promised that we may get some advantage which will compensate us for the loss we are sustaining at present."
I do not think the retail shopkeeper will view with satisfaction that very hypothetical advantage which may come to him in the remote future in compensation for the sacrifices he is being called upon to make and, therefore. I do not think the Bill, even if the Government succeed in getting it on to the Statute Book, will work in the way they antici- 1440 pate. With their very large majority they can steam roller those of us who are opposing it, but they cannot steam roller in the same easy way the sense of fairness up and down the country, and they will find that, after their steam roller has passed over us and the Bill is on the Statute Book, the indignation at the sense of injustice which the Bill creates will be so widespread that, instead of being in their favour, it will act as a boomerang and will strike them on its return.
§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH
Since the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed to me, I think it right to say a few words its reply. He has really mistaken the difficulty, though there is a difficulty which I will explain. The difficulty he has imagined is that I am full of concealed passion for this Bill which I have to repress under a mistaken sense of loyalty to my party. That is not the case. My difficulty is that I am sincerely anxious to make the best of the Bill but, as the Government goes on turning down every kind of effort that is made from these benches, and from above the Gangway, to make it better, I find it increasingly hard to support it. It is true there is something, even if the Amendment is not carried, for Middlesbrough in the Bill. It will be very difficult to collect all these millions from the petrol users without some of it leaking. But we are complaining at the same time that the basis is entirely wrong. This Amendment is one of the efforts to make it better. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose, when he imagines this enthusiasm in Middlesbrough, that there are no small bakers, milliners and tailors and workmen's cottages in Middlesbrough, for the benefit of whom this Amendment is addressed?
We have our retail problem, and we have this difficulty, just as much as any other place in the country, but our difficulty is that in all attempts to improve the Bill one is met from day to day with entirely inconsistent opposition from the Ministry. When we were trying to get special benefits for the distressed areas, particularly when we were asking the Ministry to concentrate, they refused to do so. They said it was impossible. Now when we ask them to be a little more expansive, to bring in productive people carrying on productive industries within the scope of the Bill they are all for concentration. 1441 Their attitude has changed completely. When we ask for a simple measure of justice to be done to these quite genuine producers who happen to be carrying on other occupations as well, we are told they have no money for this, and all the time the money is being poured out to other producers who do not need it. In order that the right hon. Gentleman may not be any longer under the mistake he made just now, I associate myself completely with all the criticisms which have been made from these benches and from above the Gangway.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I should like to say a word or two on this question, because I know the position from the retail traders' point of view considerably better than does the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It is a position of great difficulty and we have to consider which is the best method of dealing with it. It has been suggested, and indeed my name is down to an Amendment, that the percentage basis should be the point upon which we could try to reach a reasonable arrangement, but after considering the matter carefully I can see a great many difficulties about even a percentage basis. The man who comes just a point below the basis fixed would be aggrieved because his neighbour came one point above it. I know the difficulties we had in the old days in connection with the Inhabited House Duty. If you had large premises in which a business was being carried on and a very small dwelling house attached, you were told by the authorities that was an inhabited house within the meaning of the Act, and therefore you had to pay the Inhabited House Duty on the premises which carried on the business and the house as well. If you were fortunate enough to have a house in the suburbs and did not live over your shop premises you did not pay, because it was a lock-up shop, and therefore business premises. We got over that difficulty all right by blocking up the doorway between the house and the shop. If this passes into law as it is, the mixed businesses which are partly industrial and partly distributive will find a way out of the difficulty in respect of that.
I realise that there is a difficulty. [Interruption.]. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) says the relief will be dissipated. My idea is that it is 1442 not so much a question of giving relief to industry as industry that we are worrying about. We find the money for that already. It is the overlapping where the difficulty comes in, and it will be a difficult matter for certain traders to meet. Take a large co-operative store, for instance, who do all their baking for their stores in one large bakery, separate and apart altogether from the distributive side of the business. I take it that, as a factory within the meaning of the Act, they will be able to claim to be de-rated for that. On the other hand, take the ordinary private baker, who may be doing more in the way of wholesale trade, and therefore the bakery is a much larger part of his premises than the little shop. Then you are up against a difficulty. He thinks we are responsible for fixing this, bearing in mind what the Act itself states, that where the business is primarily that of producing he will be able to make a case and go before the assessment committee, men on the spot who know the position and know the difficulty he is up against and they will treat him fairly and squarely. They will put down a definite percentage. It is possible that there will be an injustice done in that case.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
The argument is (hat if these small places are given relief, the intended relief to productive industries will be dissipated. The Revenue officers will be present at the local assessment committee so that he may have some means of protecting the Government scheme. How then will the small trader be protected by the Bill?
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
If the hon. Member has had as much experience of local assessment committees as I have he will know that invariably, when it comes to a question between a revenue officer and the local person who is to be assessed, they are going to give full consideration to the claim of the local person. As a matter of fact, the matter was threshed out very clearly in another Act of Parliament passed by this House where it was suggested that a revenue officer should be in attendance acting in a judical capacity, and people did not like the idea at all. I am not afraid of leaving the matter in the hands of the local assessment committee to deal with if I have to go before them.
1443 The point was raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester about the trader having some benefit possibly in the dim and distant future. I have discussed this matter with various traders' organisations and with my fellow traders, and I believe they are convinced, as I am, that this will help the trader to get an increased turnover. What does it matter if you get 1s. or 1s. 6d. off your rates if there are no customers to purchase in the shop? If this scheme is going to help productive industry, as I believe it is, the result of that will be that we shall have more employment and, what is more important, more full time employment. The difficulty we are really up against is that our customers are only working two or three days a week. We know they are decent and respectable citizens, and we have to give them credit to help them over their difficulties, and if they were employed full time they would be able to pay their way. If the Bill is going to produce the results we hope—none of us can say it will not until it has been given a fair test—we are going to get the benefit, and get it pretty quickly too, because people who have been unemployed, or partly employed, are wanting goods very badly, and as soon as they earn money we shall feel the benefit.
Therefore, I say that we do not want to be worrying much about a little off our own rates so much as hoping that we shall get an increased turnover. A good deal of the argument on those lines has had the bottom knocked out of it by the White Paper that has been issued this week-end. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Quite evidently hon. Members have not paid as close attention to that White Paper as I have. At any rate, I am satisfied that I, as a trader who will not be able to claim any relief whatever on any ground that is stated in the Bill, shall not have to pay any more in the way of rates on my premises and shall get a benefit in my own town because the formula happens to work out to our advantage. I am perfectly satisfied that this scheme is going to help, not only the producing industries, but the distributive industries as well, in the way that I have indicated.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
I want to turn for a moment to the speech of the Parliamentary 1444 Secretary, and to begin on the narrow, technical ground of what the word "primarily" means. There is an old proverb which warns people against trying to be more catholic than the Pope, and I always think of that proverb when I hear the Parliamentary Secretary speak after his chief. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the assessment committees would be able to decide on a question of facts, but his chief said:I daresay there will be some criticism directed to this word 'primarily'…. I have given long thought to this problem. I have been unable to find any way by which you could once and for all settle in this Bill how a particular property, when conditions vary so much, is definitely and finally to be classified. I think it is a question that must be left to the common sense of the rating authority. The rating authority…will make its decisions…and if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision, he can take it to the Assessment Committee, and, if the Assessment Committee is against him, he can take it to Quarter Sessions, and then to a higher Court."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; cols. 188–9, Vol. 218.]It is not a question, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, of trusting the local people who know the facts. Although the Parliamentary Secretary considers that the word "primarily" is so excellent, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister admitted that the word was one which had given him anxious consideration. I ventured to do what I believe Boy Scouts call a daily piece of kindness by setting down an Amendment to give a clear definition of the word "primarily," and I am very much encouraged by something which is on the Order Paper to-day. I outlined in my Second Reading speech some Amendments to Clause 5, and they went down in due course. On opening the Order Paper to-day, I saw the distinguished name of the Minister of Health added to a considerable number of the Amendments which I put down.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
Those Amendments were put down to remove from the minds of all concerned any fear of possible litigation with regard to the word "primarily." There was a conference of surveyors in the North of England not long ago, and expert after expert got up and said they could not under-stand 1445 the word "primarily," and they hoped there would be some explanation of it. Litigation is a very great evil. I think it is one of the humbler duties of Members of Parliament to help to frame legislation that is clear and definite, and unless the guillotine cuts us off, we shall go into the Lobby for a clear definition of the word "primarily."
I come to the other main objection. It is, said that it does not matter about relieving the little businesses, so long as we give money to the big businesses. The Minister said it would be a great pity to waste money in stimulating the little enterprises, because the small amount of relief they would get for the small premises would be negligible. Anybody can see how fallacious that argument is, for if you have a big business and a small business side by side in the same locality, the rent is in the same proportion to the overhead costs of the business in both cases, and it is ridiculous to say that it is a good thing to give 5 per cent. to a big business because it is a big business, but that 5 per cent. to a little man would be so small as to be inappreciable. The amount of relief to the business is the same in both cases. We have been told that these little people in the aggregate do not make a vast amount of employment, but they do. I have in my hand a circular from the meat distributive traders, 35,000 of them, and they make an appreciable quantity of the preserved meats that are sold. From the electoral point of view, the little man has an advantage because he is more numerous.
To come back to the main point, it does not reduce prices to give a gift to the people who are already producing wealth. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said he did not wish to dissipate relief by giving it to large and small, but I am tired of that word "dissipation." The problem is easy. Geographically, there are certain districts, although not so very many, where the rates are killing the inhabitants. If you devoted the £31,000,000 to relieving everybody in the distressed areas, you would smooth inequalities and do more for the industry and trade of the country than by the money which is being scattered on the just and unjust alike. You are throwing away money with both hands in directions which can do nothing 1446 for productive industry, and our contention is that this Bill has all the essential evils which invariably flow from interfering arbitrarily, capriciously and partially with the operations of trade and commerce. The Bill inflicts very grave injustices on a large number of persons and is unworkable in its details. I have made a good many prophecies in regard to this Bill. The first one that I made has been fulfilled to the letter. I said that Clause 5 must be altered, and it has been altered, and——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert)
I must remind the hon. Member that we are now dealing with a particular Amendment.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
This Bill inflicts injustice on a great number of small persons, and I prophesied that the partial operation of the Bill and its complexity would rouse the country against it. That prophecy is being partially fulfilled, as is evidenced by the number of circulars from traders and others which are coming in; and when we get, as we ought to have at some not distant date, the views of the local authorities on this Bill, it will be seen that these technical points to which I have endeavoured to draw attention are things in which the local authorities are extremely interested and which will undoubtedly produce a very great crop of litigation.
§ Mr. TOMLINSON
I recognise that the money available will not be sufficient to provide relief for all branches of industry and that the Minister has found it necessary to distinguish between productive and distributive industries. He is very anxious that the relief to productive industry should be definite and substantial, but what I want to point out is that under this Clause there is an equally clear distinction being drawn between large productive industries and small productive industries, and I want to protest as strongly as I can against that distinction. It seems to me that there are many small productive industries in this country that will not receive any relief at all under this Measure, and I appeal to the Minister to consider, between now and the Report stage, whether it would not be possible for him to accept one of the Amendments, which I fear will not be reached before 7.30 this evening, to alter the words "if it is primarily" to the words "in so far as 1447 it is." I would suggest that that Amendment should be accepted, thus making is possible to help industries that really can make out a strong case for aid.
I hold in my hand a letter which I have received this morning from the retail tailoring trade in Lancaster and Morecambe, employing local labour, in which they protest against relief being given to large industries when they themselves, the smaller industries, are receiving no help whatever. That criticism also holds good with regard to bakers and many other branches of industry. I will not detain the Committee by refering to the many others to which I might refer, because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I wanted to take this opportunity, before the guillotine falls at half-past seven, of asking the Minister if he could not consider the cases to which I have referred.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
I was quite touched by the simple faith of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), who thinks that everything will be perfectly all right for the small traders when this Bill becomes law. I do not wish particularly to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot refrain from suggesting to him that he may have been moved in what he said more in support of his party than in the interests of the small trading community. He did to a great extent repudiate the suggestion of the Minister, and of the Parliamentary Secretary, that this: Bill is going to stimulate trade, and went on the other tack, that it may, by increased wages and employment, benefit the small traders. What I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that it will do nothing of the sort. Belief is to be given to large undertakings, and I think the Minister himself suggested that it was useless to consider dissipating this money among small businesses, but I would suggest that experience should teach all sides of the House that where great undertakings make any profits or are eased in any way by expenditure such as this Measure contemplates, they do not in a generous and distinterested manner turn it on to their workpeople in greater wages or in assisting them to a greater spending power.
The larger industries have been paying in profits in recent years from 5 to 50 and more per cent., with bonuses during the 1448 last few years of 50 per cent., and their profits will go where the well-to-do shareholders take them, that is, abroad, to be spent on luxuries, in long holidays and in fine exhibitions of themselves and their relatives in some of the notable holiday resorts of the world. If this Bill covered small productive industries, which the hon. Member for Grimsby thinks will benefit by increased wages and increased trade, the money would be passed on to be spent in the towns where the small productive industries are situated.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
The hon. Member is referring to small productive industries. I was referring to the distributive industries. The small productive industries, if they are productive, will get the benefit.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
Not at all. The hon. Member, apparently, does not understand the point which he was endeavouring to put before the Committee. The Bill will not assist the small productive industries, and consequently it cannot assist, by increased wages and increased employment, the small distributive industries either. In the town which I represent the traders are mostly small traders, who have been hit exceedingly hard by virtue of the nation's necessity overcrowding the town; when the nation's necessity ceased, the town was left to deal with the dregs of it after the nation had had the value. We have crashing businesses, bankruptcies of small shopkeepers, and small productive industries over-weighted with rates. Under this Bill, they will, where they have a small van using petrol, pay towards this scheme, and the cost of their businesses will go up. They will get no relief which would enable them to spend money in their own town and so make local employment and benefit the traders, but they will see the money which they and others contribute go to the great undertakings.
I am not complaining about the Tory party looking after their well-to-do friends. That is what they are here for, and I hope that when the party of which I am a member is returned, we shall look after the poor people. I am not cavilling about it, but we may as well call a spade a spade and face facts. The small traders whom I represent will see what they contribute going to huge undertakings, to great multiple firms, and it will not assist the town in the slightest degree, because the money will be spent 1449 in the manner I have indicated. I hope that not only the hon. Member for Grimsby, but other people who are sincerely interested in the trading community, will make the Government realise, in spite of the unrelenting attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, that what they are doing is being watched by these small traders and productive industries.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
There is no stronger argument against the use of the Guillotine than the confusion of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). His interjection, when the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) was speaking, proved that conclusively. He, apparently, holds the view that productive industries of all kinds are to be protected under this Measure. If there is one thing more clear than any other, it is that there are hybrid industries, which are both productive and distributive, that are not safeguarded at all. That is the point of substance which is now being debated. It would be desirable for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to remove the confusion of mind in which their hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby finds himself. There is nothing more extravagant than the assertion of the hon. Member for Grimsby that an increase in the purchasing power of the wage-earner will result from the passing of this Measure. He has said something even more strange, to which I invite the attention of the Committee. He said that the distributive trades, the shopkeepers and retailers with whom he is associated, are not very much concerned with a very little measure of relief from de-rating proposals. He said in effect, "How does a mere matter of 1s. 6d. concern them? If they can increase the purchasing power of the wage earners it will be ever so much better." One might suppose that he believes that rates are not so much a burden upon industry as has been supposed. Clearly, if he is not desirous of removing the burden of rates from distributive industry, then rates are not such a burden as he and his Friends have been trying to make out. Perhaps the hon. Member might consider that in his leisure moments. I understand that he has devoted quite a lot of time to considering this Measure, but it might have been desirable if he had considered this 1450 point. I come to the point of the increase in the purchasing power of the wage earner. It is proposed by this Measure to devote relief to the extent of about £30,000,000 to industry. Does the hon. Member for Grimsby suggest that the whole of that £30,000,000 will pass to the wage earners of this country? Obviously, the reply to that question must be in the negative.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
My own opinion is that the biggest part of it will go back into the pockets of the wage earners in increased employment, and, I hope, in increased wages to the workers.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
It is, at all events, clear that the hon. Member is not so extravagant now as he was before. He does not suppose that the whole of the £30,000,000 is to pass to the wage earner; what he now says is that some part of it, perhaps the major part, will pass to the wage earner. There is no one in this Committee, however much time he may have devoted to a consideration of the proposals embodied in this Measure, who can say specifically and definitely how much is to pass to the wage earners as the result of this Measure. It may well be that nothing will pass to the wage earners. The hon. Member spoke of added employment——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment which is before the Committee.
§ Mr. SHINWELL
I do not propose to follow it more than a few paces now. I will content myself with these few observations First, there is no evidence whatever to show that the relief will pass to the wage earning classes. That is purely hypothetical. Secondly, there has been no clear line of demarcation laid down in any of the speeches we have heard from the opposite bench in regard to what is purely a productive industry and what is purely a distributive industry. Upon that head we are entitled to definite information. Lastly, I want seriously to suggest to the right hon. 1451 Gentleman that it is impossible for him to ignore the representations that have been made to every Member of the House by the retail distributors of this country. If he believes that rates are a burden upon industry, and are a burden upon productive and distributive industries, then, whatever measure of relief is afforded, ought to be afforded without distinction. It certainly should not be afforded to prosperous industries while the distributive industries, which are certainly more in need of it than brewers and others of that kind, are deprived of it.
§ Sir JOHN MARRIOTT
I want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley), because he is, in one way, interested in a particular class in which I am also deeply interested. I am perfectly prepared to go among the railwaymen of York and demonstrate to them that this Bill will be a direct advantage to them. I shall be prepared to meet anyone who desires to challenge that statement. The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness poured a great deal of contempt, in a perfectly pleasing and Parliamentary way, upon my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). I desire to associate myself entirely with the hon. Member for Grimsby. I believe that, although the retail trader and the small distributive trader will not receive under this Measure direct relief, the relief which will come to the productive industries will very soon find its way into the coffers of the retail traders. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness assumed that great industries in this country were carried on by means of individual large capitalists. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the great industries are carried on by capital which is subscribed, not by a few large people, but by a multitude of small capitalists.
§ Mr. BROMLEY
If the hon. Gentleman's contention is correct, will he tell me whether it is the small people with the small capital that over-subscribed for these new industries that are put up by someone who has got in on the ground floor, or by the well-to-do-people?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that this discussion is getting a little off the mark. It is true that on this Amendment it is open to discuss whether the small industries should be cut out or not, but the discussion is going wider than it should do.
§ Sir J. MARRIOTT
I bow to that decision. I have no desire to pursue the argument further, as I am only attempting to answer the hon. Member for Barrow, who is interested in a particular industry in which I also happen to be particularly interested. His contention was incorrect in two respects, I think. He was incorrect in saying that the advantage would all go to large capitalists. I contend that the advantage will go to all who are engaged in productive industry, whether they are large capitalists or small capitalists or whether they are, as most of them are, industrial workers. The second point is that the advantage which goes directly and immediately to productive industries will very soon filter down to those retail distributors for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was speaking.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
In a very few words I wish to raise a point of considerable substance with which I hope the Minister of Health will be kind enough to deal. I do not know under which part of this Clause the industrial establishments of the Government fall. I take it they may fall under paragraph (f), but there is no direct reference to them in the Bill, and naturally they are very anxious to know what their fate is going to be. The Government do not pay rates; the Government make a contribution in lieu of rates and are not compelled by law either to make that contribution or to bring their industrial establishments under this Bill. It appears to me that the industrial establishments of the Government are going to be at a great disadvantage under the Bill, because the concession to private shipbuilding firms is a very considerable one. They are to be relieved of three quarters of their rates, but in the case of the Government the transaction will be a transfer from one pocket to another, and the cost of maintaining their dockyards will be exactly the same whether they get the relief or whether they do not. Whereas private shipbuilding firms in competition with Government yards will get what is 1453 virtually a cheque for three-quarters of their rates, the dockyards will not be in the same advantageous position; their costs of production will be maintained, while those of the private shipbuilding firms will be reduced. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable disquietude in the dockyard and arsenal towns, and we would like to know where we stand. As far as I can see, the position is as I have defined it, but certainly the properties are not mentioned in this Bill, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us exactly where we stand.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I would say, in reply to the hon. Member, that really his question does not arise on this Bill at all. This is not a Bill which of itself gives any relief to anybody; this is merely a Bill which is to provide for the classification of certain properties in the valuation lists for the purpose of being dealt with in a later Bill. The point which he has raised is, therefore, not really appropriate upon this Bill, but will properly be dealt with when we come to give the relief in a later Bill.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
But this Bill defines what an industrial hereditament is, and is the whole basis on which the relief will be given. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what the position of the Crown properties will be? Presumably he has considered it, seeing that he has mentioned it in the White Paper.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Of course it has been considered, but I repeat that it is not really appropriate to deal with it on this particular Bill, because it does not matter whether a Government property is an industrial hereditament or not; it must be dealt with in some other way than by putting it in the valuation list, seeing that it is not rated. Therefore, I can only repeat that the matter is one which will have to be dealt with in a later Bill.
§ Mr. PALING
I rise to deal shortly with two points on which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me some information earlier. His answer, it appears to me, shows that problems will arise between pit and pit. Broadly speaking, I think his answer was this, that where a land sales office was apart 1454 from the pit it would not be included in the assessment and would not come in for relief. But what occurs to my mind is this. I have one pit in mind, No. 1 pit, where the land sales and the sale of coal and everything is done within the curtilage of the works, and I imagine that those premises now come under one assessment, are treated as one hereditament. I also imagine, when the time comes to look into it, that those premises will not exceed the 10 per cent.
I was putting this question earlier, and Mr. Hope, who was then presiding over the Committee, promised that we should be allowed to raise this matter on this Amendment.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I think what was said at the time, and what was the view of the Chairman, was that the question could be raised on the definition of the word "mine."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That is so. The word, "mine" has already been passed. In Sub-section (1) of the Clause it says, "and used as a mine or," and then come the words of the Amendment. The word "mine" has already been decided and we can deal now only with the question of factories or workshops and the exceptions to the definitions of them.
§ Mr. PALING
May I suggest that the words "as hereinafter provided" may very well affect the point that I am putting up now, namely, that these words may exclude the particular premises in connection with a mine to which I have been referring?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member will be careful to relate-what he is saying about mines to any of the items under paragraphs (a) to (f);then he will be in order, but I think at present he is not doing so.
§ Mr. PALING
I am dealing with the distributive side of the pit, which is concerned with the sale and the distribution of coal. I think there may be a fight over these matters, and it is because I 1455 am afraid the words to which I have referred will exclude these premises at certain pits and not at others that I am raising this point now. I have dealt with the case of what I have called pit No.1, and I think I showed there that there would be some relief. The second case is that of a colliery which has its land sales department, perhaps, a mile away from the pit, though both the colliery and the land sales department are under one local authority. I imagine that both are included in the one assessment now, that they are treated as one hereditament at the present time; but my point is that when the position at this second pit is being considered the Revenue officer will come in and say, "But these buildings are separate and apart from the pit," and I feel they will be disqualified under one of these paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f). I do not know which will win, but I am pretty sure there is going to be trouble at that pit as to whether those premises shall be included in the hereditament which is going to receive relief from rates. Then there is a third colliery where the pit itself is under one local authority and the land sales office is two miles away, and is under another local authority. I think I shall be right in saying that there are two separate assessments in that case, and that they pay separately, and I do not think there will be much difficulty for the Revenue officer to claim that they must be treated as two assessments.
This is what is then going to occur. The first pit will get the whole of the relief, without any qualification, merely because the whole of the premises are within the precincts of the pit. In the case of the second pit it is going to be doubtful, and the people responsible and the Revenue officer are going to fall out, and I do not know how the point will be decided. In the third case the point is not doubtful; it will be decided against the pit. But this third pit is performing precisely the same work as the other two pits, and the owners of it will say, "Why should No. 1 pit get the relief and we do not?" I can see that that is what will occur, and I do not know what will be the end of it. This is one of the conundrums which will have to be settled.
1456 The last point I wish to make is in regard to what the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said about wages. He said a part of the benefit of this relief would come back in the shape of wages. In the case of mines I am not so sure that it will come back in wages to the working men. There is a deficiency on the working of the mines totalling about £25,000,000. I was reading only this morning that in one of the ascertainment areas the ascertainment for the month has shown 9.9 per cent. on the basis rates. The minimum wage is 36s. If this relief in rates goes to the pits while the industry remains in its present condition—and there is no possibility at the moment of its getting much better—the whole of it will go to the owners to make up the difference between what is the deficiency in the ascertainment and the minimum wage, and the miner will not get anything. And if even it made more than the minimum wage, the miner would get nothing out of it, because it would merely go to pay part of the deficiency of £25,000,000 which has already accumulated, and go into the mineowners' pockets. These are points which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in mind and try to elucidate at some future period.
§ Mr. CONNOLLY
I wish to raise a point arising out of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney). The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) raised the question of the Royal dockyards and said that while they were to get no relief private shipbuilding establishments would receive relief to the extent of about 75 per cent. of their rates. If the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. and learned Member for South Shields is correct, the relief is not going to be 75 per cent., but something less perhaps than 25 per cent. I would like the Minister to give his attention to this point, because the Parliamentary Secretary has thrown a bomb amongst us this afternoon. He said that a factory or workshop means neither more nor less than a factory or workshop under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, and succeeding Acts. If that interpretation is to be applied in the case of assessments under this Clause and the next Clause, what relief 1457 are shipyards and engineering shops going to get? There are four shipyards in my division. What does that interpretation mean? It means, first of all, that you have the drawing offices outside the provisions of Clause 3, and you have the commercial offices, the time offices, the model loft, the riggers' and equipment loft and the general store all excepted from the provisions of Clause 3 and Clause 4. That is what the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary means, because those places are not subject to inspection under the Factory and Workshops Act. The Parliamentary Secretary said that everyone knows what a factory or workshop is, that it is where a factory inspector goes. The factory inspector is not concerned with all parts of shipyards, and if that interpretation
§ stands good then they will not get 75 per cent. relief but something less than 25 per cent. I think it is time the right hon. Gentleman cleared up that point, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said there is a clear-cut definition, and that it is the same as in the Factory and Workshops Acts. In those Acts it is laid down that only those parts of the factory which are used for the constructive processes are affected. It is very essential that the right hon. Gentleman should clear this up under Clause 3 before we go on to Clause 4.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 140.1459
|Division No. 239.]||AYES.||[7.2 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Albery, Irving James||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)|
|Balniel, Lord||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark|
|Bennett, A. J.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Eden, Captain Anthony||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Bethel, A.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Ellis, R. G.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bevan, S. J.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Fielden, E. B.||Lamb, J. O.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Lane fox, col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Long, Major Eric|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Ganzonl, Sir John||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gates, Percy||Lumley, L. R.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Goff Sir Park||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Grace, John||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Burman, J. B.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)||McLean, Major A.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Grotrian, H. Brent||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hammersley, S. S.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Harland, A.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Christie, J. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Haslam, Henry C.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Handerson, Capt. ft. R. (Oxf'd, Hanley)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Cope, Major Sir William||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir s. J. G.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Oakley, T.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Savery, S. S.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Perring, Sir William George||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Shepperson, E. W.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Skelton, A. N.||Wells, S. R.|
|Preston, William||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Radford, E. A.||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Ramsden, E.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George)|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Streatfeild, Captain S. R||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Withers, John James|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Ropner, Major L.||Templeton, W. P.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Waddington, R.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Grundy, T. W.||Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hardie, George D.||Saklatvala, Shapurji|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Harney, E. A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Harris, Percy A||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scurr, John|
|Barnes, A.||Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James|
|Barr, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Batey, Joseph||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shinwell, E.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Briant, Frank||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Broad, F. A.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smillie, Robert|
|Bromley, J.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly)||Snell, Harry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Kelly, W. T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, T.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kirkwood, D.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawrence, Susan||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Connolly, M.||Lindley, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lunn, William||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacLaren, Andrew||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Day, Harry||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Townend, A. E.|
|Dennison, R.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Duncan, C.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Viant, S. P.|
|Dunnico, H.||March, S.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Edge, Sir William||Maxton, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Montague, Frederick||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J.|
|Gardner, J. P.||Naylor, T. E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Oliver, George Harold||Whiteley, W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Palin, John Henry||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Gosling, Harry||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenall, T.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Windsor, Walter|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Riley, Ben|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Groves, T.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)||Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.|
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, after the second word "hereditament," to insert the words:the business carried on in which yielded or may yield profits or gains within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and any 1460 enactments amending the same, in the last year preceding the valuation in respect of which the profits or gains of such business or of the occupier of such hereditament may be or may have been ordinarily calculated for the purpose of that Act at a rate exceeding seven per cent. upon the capital actually employed in such business.1461 I am afraid I shall not be able in the remaining 20 minutes to say all that I intended to say. That the discussion is limited to 20 minutes is clear evidence that the Opposition were right in asking for five or six days on this Bill. We have only discussed four out of all the Amendments on this Clause. This Amendment ought to commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary, because his invariable reply to all the other Amendments proposed has been to accuse us, when we have taken the method of including that which is excluded from the Bill, of dissipating the relief. He has advanced that argument time after time, until the word "dissipation" is a familiar spirit. In this case we have no "dissipators." This Amendment is intended to do what he has been arguing for, namely, to concentrate the relief where it is most needed. If passed, it will give the Minister some millions of money, instead of giving it to great prosperous firms. I have gone through the investment list of the Stock Exchange and have drawn up a list of 40 firms which have paid dividends in the last year ranging from 1 2 to 70 per cent. The effect of my Amendment would be that the relief, notwithstanding that these firms come within the definition already decided upon in the Bill, would not go to those firms. That would leave the Minister free to concentrate the relief where we have been trying to get it, namely, in the necessitous areas and for the relief of the small men. In this case we are turning back on the Minister his own argument that the relief should be concentrated.
I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, though not necessarily in these terms. It is drafted for the purpose of raising the
§ issue, because we think it a monstrous thing that £6,000,000, £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 of this relief—nobody knows how much—should go to prosperous firms. This Amendment will prevent the great prosperous brewers, the prosperous silk factories, the great tobacco firms and the other monopolies now paying big dividends from getting relief which would be much better spent in trying to carry out the expressed intentions of the Minister, than if dissipated by being paid to these prosperous industries. I shall refrain from saying any more because of the limitation of time.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I do not think the Committee will expect me to spend many moments discussing what is so obviously an absurd Amendment. We have already discussed and rejected the idea that the relief under this Bill should be distributed in a way that discriminates between those industries which are making a profit and those which are not. I need not dwell upon the absurdity of taking a particular year for this purpose, but the effect of such a proposal as that which is contemplated in this Amendment would be to put a premium upon inefficiency. There might be two businesses, one of which was making a profit exceeding 7 per cent., and another business from neglect, mismanagement or inefficiency of some kind might have allowed the profit to drop below 7 per cent. The latter business would receive the relief, and the other would have to pay for it. That proposition is so absurd that I ant not going to spend any more time discussing it.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 238.1463
|Division No. 240.]||AYES.||[7.17 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Buchanan, G.||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Cape, Thomas||Gardner, J. P.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Charleton, H. C.||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Cluse, W. S.||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Gillett, George M.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Connolly, M.||Gosling, Harry|
|Barnes, A.||Cove, W. G.||Greenall, T.|
|Barr, J.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Batey, Joseph||Crawfurd, H. E.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Dalton, Hugh||Griffith, F. Kingsley|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Day, Harry||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Briant, Frank||Dennison, R.||Groves, T.|
|Broad, F. A.||Duncan, C.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Dunnico, H.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Bromley, J.||Edge, Sir William||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)|
|Hardie, George D.||Montague, Frederick||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Harney, E. A.||Murnin, H.||Snell, Harry|
|Harris, Percy A.||Naylor, T. E.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Oliver, George Harold||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hayday, Arthur||Palin, John Henry||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hayes, John Henry||Paling, W.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Thurtie, Ernest|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Potts, John S.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Townend, A. E.|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Riley, Ben||Varley, Frank B.|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Ritson, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Kelly, W. T.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Kennedy, T.||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Westwood, J.|
|Kirkwood, D.||Scrymgeour, E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Lawrence, Susan||Scurr, John||Whiteley, W.|
|Lawson, John James||Sexton, James||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Lindley, F. W.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Lunn, William||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Shinwell, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Windsor, Walter|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wright, W.|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|March, S.||Smillie, Robert|
|Maxton, James||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Mr. Fenby and Mr. Ernest Brown.|
|Albery, Irving James||Colman, N. C. D.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cooper, A. Duff||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Couper, J. B.||Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Astor, Viscountess||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Balniel, Lord||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Holt, Capt. H. P.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Bethel, A.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Ellis, R. G.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Fielden, E. B.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Fraser, Captain Ian||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Lamb, J. O|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Burman, J. B.||Gates, Percy||Lister, Cunliffe., Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Goff, Sir Park||Loder, J. de V.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Grace, John||Long, Major Eric|
|Campbell, E. T.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Lumley, L. R.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wth's'w,E)||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Macintyre, I.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hacking, Douglas H.||McLean, Major A.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hammersley, S. S.||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harland, A.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Margesson, Capt. D.|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Rentoul, G. S.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Ropner, Major L.||Waddington, R.|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Salmon, Major I.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Wells, S. R.|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Sanderson, Sir Frank||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Datrymple.|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Savery, S. S.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Oakley, T.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Shepperson, E. W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Skelton, A. N.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Withers, John James|
|Perring, Sir William George||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Smithers, Waldron||Womersley, W. J.|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wood, E. (Chesfr, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Preston, William||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Radford, E. A.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Major Sir William Cope and Mr. Penny.|
|Ramsden, E.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Templeton, W. P.|
§ Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, after the word "workshop," to insert the words:for the manufacture wholly or partly of any article which, if imported into this country, would be subject to a duty of Customs, and does not include a hereditament occupied and used as a factory or workshop.Owing to the limitation of time under the guillotine, it will be impossible for me properly to discuss this Amendment. This is a proposal to exclude from the operation of the proposed relief all that long list of industries which have been protected in one way or another. If there be a case for helping industries under this scheme, I think it is reasonable to say that, at any rate, we should not help those industries which have been safeguarded. Month by month we get a list of new industries which, under the Safeguarding procedure, are given protection, and our position is that some of the greatest and most important industries in this country, like the iron and steel trade, under the restrictions imposed by the Prime Minister and the Government, cannot obtain any assistance, while under this Bill all those other
§ industries which have been protected under the Safeguarding procedure are now, in addition to that, to receive derating on precisely the same conditions as all other industries in the Kingdom. [Interruption.]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I must ask hon. Members, if they want to carry on their conversation, not to do it so loudly.
§ Mr. GREENWOOD
If it be true that the effect of the Safeguarding procedure has been to give a new lease of life to the industry safeguarded, then it will not be any hardship to exclude from the operation of this Bill a particular group of prosperous industries. We have been told that the Government do not desire to dissipate the help which they propose to give. If that be so, then I think the Government might exclude from the operation of this Measure the safeguarded industries.
§ Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 254.1467
|Division No. 241.]||AYES.||[7.30 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Barr, J.||Bromley, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Batey, Joseph||Brown, Ernest (Leith)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Bondfield, Margaret||Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Buchanan, G.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Briant, Frank||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Broad, F. A.||Cape, Thomas|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Bromfield, William||Charleton, H. C.|
|Cluse, W. S.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sexton, James|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Connolly, M.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Shinwell, E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kelly, W. T.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kennedy, T.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Day, Harry||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Smillie, Robert|
|Dennison, R.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Duncan, C.||Lawrence, Susan||Smith, H. B. Lees. (Keighlay)|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawson, John James||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lindley, F. W.||Snall, Harry|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Livingstone, A. M.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Fenby, T. D||Lunn, William||Stamford, T. W.|
|Gardner, J. P.||MacLaren, Andrew||Stephen, Campbell|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Stewart, I. (St. Rollox)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Gillett, George M.||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Gosling, Harry||March, S.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Greenall, T.||Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Montague, Frederick||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Murnin, H.||Townend, A. E.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley||Naylor, T. E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold||Varley, Frank B.|
|Groves, T.||Palin, John Henry||Viant, S. P.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Potts, John S.||Westwood, J.|
|Hardie, George D.||Richardson, R. (Houghlon-le-Spring)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Harney, E. A.||Riley, Ben||Whiteley, W.|
|Harris, Percy A.||Ritson, J.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hayes, John Henry||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Windsor, Walter|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Wright, W.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Scurr, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)|
|Albery, Irving James||Campbell, E. T.||Ellis, R. G.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Carver, Major W. H.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)|
|Asthury, Lieut-Commander F. W.||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Astor, Viscountess||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Fairfax, Captain J. G.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Fade, Sir Bertram G.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Fielden, E. B.|
|Balniel, Lord||Chapman, Sir S||Ford, Sir P. J.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Forrest, W.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Christie, J. A.||Fraser, Captain Ian|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Bennett, A. J.||Clarry, Reginald George||Gates, Percy|
|Bethel, A.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Goff, Sir Park|
|Bevan, S. J.||Colman, N. C. D.||Grace, John|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cooper, A. Duff||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Couper, J. B.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Grotrian, H. Brent|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Braithwalte, Major A. N.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hacking, Douglas H.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Cuiverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Curzon Captain Viscount||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Harland, A.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Buckingham Sir H.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Burman, J. B.||Duckworth, John||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Meller, R. J.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)||Nelson, Sir Frank||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Templeton, W. P.|
|Hurst, Gerald B.||Nuttall, Ellis||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Oakley, T.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Iveagh, Countess of||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Waddington, R.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Perring, Sir William George||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Preston, William||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Price, Major C. W. M.||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Radford, E. A.||Wells, S. R.|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Raine, Sir Waiter||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple|
|Loder, J. de V.||Ramsden, E.||Williams, Com- C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Long, Major Eric||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Lougher, Lewis||Rentoul, G. S.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Windsor, Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Lumley, L. R.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lynn, Sir R. J.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Withers, John James|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Ropner, Major L.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Womersley, W. J.|
|McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Macintyre, Ian||Salmon, Major I.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|McLean, Major A.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Macmillan, Captain H.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|MacRobert, Alexander M.||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Sanderson, Sir Frank||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Savery, S. S.||Major Sir William Cope and Mr.|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Penny.|
§ It bring after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th- June, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting and on1470
§ an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 141.1473
|Division No. 242.]||AYES.||[7.39 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)|
|Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. Charles||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)|
|Albery, Irving James||Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Chapman, Sir S.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Brass, Captain W.||Charteris, Brigadier-General J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Brassey, Sir Leonard||Christie, J. A.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer|
|Astor, Viscountess||Brings, J. Harold||Churchman, Sir Arthur C.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Briscoe, Richard George||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown-Lindsay, Major H.||Colman, N. C. P.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Burman, J. B.||Cope, Major Sir William|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Couper, J. B.|
|Bennett, A. J.||Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Bethel, A.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Campbell, E. T.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Bevan, S. J.||Carver, Major W. H.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton,W.)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Daikelth, Earl of|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ramsden, E.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hurst, Gerald B.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Iveagh, Countess of||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Jephcott, A. R.||Ropner, Major L.|
|Duckworth, John||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Samuel, Samuel (W'dswortb, Putney.)|
|Ellis, R. G.||Lamb, J. Q.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Savery, S. S.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Loder, J. de V.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Faile, Sir Bertram G.||Long, Major Eric||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Laugher, Lewis||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Skelton, A. N.|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Lumley, L. R.||Slaney, Major p. Kenyon|
|Forrest, W.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Gates, Percy||Macintyre, Ian||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||McLean, Major A.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Macmillan, Captain H.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Grace, John||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Templeton, W. P.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)||Margesson, Captain D.||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Grotrian, H. Brent||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Meller, R. J.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Hacking, Douglas H.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Waddington, R.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||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|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Harland, A.||Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Watts, Sir Thomas|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Nelson, Sir Frank||Wells, S. R.|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivlan||Nuttall, Ellis||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Oakley, T.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh||Withers, John James|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Holt, Capt. H. P.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wood, E. (Chester, Staiy'b'ge & Hyde)|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Perring, Sir William George||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Preston, William|
|Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)||Price, Major C. W. M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hume, Sir G. H.||Radford, E. A.||Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cape, Thomas||Gibbins, Joseph|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Charleton, H. C.||Gillett, George M.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Cluse, W. S.||Gosling, Harry|
|Ammon, Charles George||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Greenall, T.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Connolly, M.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Cove, W. G.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Griffith, F. Kingsley|
|Barr, J.||Crawfurd, H. E.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Batey, Joseph||Dalton, Hugh||Groves, T.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Day, Harry||Grundy, T. W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dennison, R.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Briant, Frank||Duncan, C.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Broad, F. A.||Dunnico, H.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Bromfield, William||Edge, Sir William||Hardie, George D.|
|Bromley, J.||Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Harney, E. A.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Harris, Percy A.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Fenby, T. D.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Buchanan, G||Gardner, J. P.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Hayes, John Henry|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Oliver, George Harold||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Pailn, John Henry||Stamford, T. W.|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Hore-Bellsha, Leslie||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Jonkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Potts, John S.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Riley, Ben||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Ritson, J.||Tomlinson, R. P.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Townend, A. E.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Robinson, W. G. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Kennedy, T.||Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Viant, S. P.|
|Kirkwood, D.||Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonnda)|
|Lawson, John James||Scrymgeour, E.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Lindley, F. W.||Scurr, John||Westwood, J.|
|Livingstone, A. M.||Sexton, James||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Lunn, William||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Whiteley, W.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wiggins, William Martin|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Shinwell, E.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Windsor, Walter|
|March, S.||Smillie, Robert||Wright, W.|
|Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhthe)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Montague, Frederick||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Murnin, H.||Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Naylor, T. E.||Snell, Harry||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.|