§ 3. Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. LONG-BOTTOM)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for copies of the evidence now being submitted by the applicants for safeguarding in the woollen industry to be available, on completion, to Members of the House of Commons?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe practice which has been consistently followed is that the reports of Safeguarding inquiries are published, but that the evidence, which is often exceedingly voluminous, is not published, as the cost is too great and the utility too questionable to justify this course to the House.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs it not the fact that the minutes of evidence are taken by shorthand writers and afterwards transcribed, and would it not be possible for an extra carbon copy to be made so that hon. Members of this House might understand the question which they are to debate?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat question has often been raised in debate and has been answered by the Prime Minister and myself. I am merely repeating the answer which has been previously given. I am only following 194 the practice which has been consistently followed in regard to Safeguarding inquiries.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDMay I ask whether, in view of the considerable development of this policy and the tremendous importance of this evidence, the Government will reconsider a decision which was perhaps quite reasonable at the time it was taken but which is unreasonable now?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by a "considerable development of this policy." Any inquiry which is proceeding is an inquiry conducted under precisely the same conditions as have been in operation for the last four years.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an industry affecting 250,000 people; it is the largest application that has been made. In that case, does he not think Members of Parliament, who have to make the final decision, ought to know what has been said at the inquiry?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not think the particular size of the application is relevant. All inquiries are public, and I do not think the public advantage would be served by printing an enormous volume of evidence.