§ 11. "That it is expedient to make provision as to the Income Tax payable in connection with the conversion of United Kingdom Government Securities owned by persons carrying on any trade which consists wholly or partly in dealing in securities."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONI desire to offer a few remarks in regard to this vicious and immoral tax on beer. I use those words advisedly. Prior to 1913 or 1914 the tax on a barrel of beer of 1,055 gravity was 7s. 9d.; to-day it will be £6 14s., but there is a rebate which brings it down to £5 14s. The tax proposed to-day is 15 times greater than it was pre-War. There is no proposal in the Budget to put a further tax on spirituous liquors or on wine, that is, there is no proposal to tax the drink of the people who can afford to pay it. The burden is put on the workers' beverage, which is often so mild that I can find ginger beer which is stronger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in outlining this tax, made it quite distinct that the consumer was to be charged every penny of the tax that was to be imposed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claims to be the friend of the poor, had consulted some of the Members on this side of the House we could have given him some information, and he might have done better for the nation and better for the men who take a glass of beer.
This tax is being imposed in the name of equality of sacrifice! We talked about equality of sacrifice in 1914. Millions of men mortgaged their lives and the lives of their wives and families, and to-day are suffering because of that inequality 858 of sacrifice. How many of them are receiving unemployment benefit to-day because of that sacrifice? Everybody knows that the present tax is far beyond what the worker ought to be called upon to pay. I say emphatically that the people who have invested their money in breweries are getting 10 per cent. interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he cannot compel these people to give up a portion of that money, but surely some way can be found of dealing with this difficulty. It is a scandal that such taxes as those which have been proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should fall upon the poor people, who are already being severely penalised under this Budget.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTI intervene in this Debate to offer a warning, and it is that I believe there is a grave danger in this proposal, although I shall vote for it, and for every proposal contained in the Budget. I do so, however, with great fear in this case, because anyone who watches the statistics of the consumption of beer in this country must realise that the proposal we are discussing will seriously affect the national revenue in the next three or four years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must realise that there will be a great decrease in the consumption of beer as a direct result of this proposal, and in that way you are going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about the revenue of the future will realise that great danger.
My next point is that never in the history of this country have the cereal farmers been in such a parlous plight, facing ruin as they are to-day. Last year the only crop in the Eastern counties which produced a profit was the barley crop, and inevitably the proposal we are now discussing is going to cause a very great decrease in the consumption of British barley. The demand for it will be cut down by 20 per cent. I want the House to realise these facts, and I can give my vote for this proposal only on the understanding that it is to be a temporary measure in order to help the country over its terrible difficulties. This is a proposal which is likely, in the long run, to decrease the revenue rather than to increase it. The hon. Member for 859 Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) referred to the sacrifices which the people of this country made during the War between 1914 and 1918. I would like to remind the hon. Member that the position of the country to-day is somewhat similar, and the perils with which we are faced are just as great. When we remember that 7,000,000 of our countrymen during that time were prepared to make a 100 per cent. sacrifice, including their lives, I hope that in this instance we shall show that we are prepared to do our share to meet the present crisis.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONThere is a way by which the consumption of beer need not be reduced, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still get the full amount of the tax. It is that the brewers should make the sacrifice. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, I noticed that one of the large brewery organisations hastily called a meeting and decided, in regard to this tax, that, so far as sacrifice was concerned, they were not going to have any, and they decided to put the tax on the consumers. The point I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is that I think the time has come when the brewers might do something in the way of sacrifice, instead of passing the burden of this tax on to the consumer. Only a week ago I obtained some information upon this subject to which I should like to draw attention. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state the aggregate profits of the brewing companies in the United Kingdom for the year 1913–14, and the latest year for which complete figures were available, and in reply to that question I was furnished with copies of replies on the same subject which were given to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on 5th May, 1930, and on 17th February last. Those figures show that the estimated profits of brewing concerns in the United Kingdom for 1913–14 were £9,971,000, and that for 1929–30 the profits were estimated at £25,000,000.
§ Sir H. CROFTIs it not a fact that in some years the largest brewers made no profit at all?
§ Mr. MORRISONIn 1913–14 the profits of the brewers were £9,971,000; in 1914–15, £11,680,000; 1915–16, £13,181,000; 1916–17, £4,220,000; 1917–18, £24,394,000; 1918–19, £30,190,000; 1919–20, £32,390,000; 1920–21, £29,000,000; and 1921–22, £19,750,000. I have already stated that the profits in 1929–30 were estimated at £25,000,000. In these circumstances is it reasonable that a body of men who claim to be the greatest patriots in the country should show such indecent haste to pass the whole of this burden on to the consumer? On this subject I would like to give a quotation from the "Times" of 10th August this year:
The ordinary general meeting of Arthur Guinness, Son and Company, Limited, was held on Saturday last at River Plate House, Finsbury Circus, London, E.C.The Earl of 1veagh, C.B., C.M.G. (Chairman of the company) presided.The Secretary (Mr. J. W. Smith) having read the notice convening the meeting, and the report of the auditors,The chairman said: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, The report, and statement of accounts have been in your hands for some days, and with your permission we will take them as read. (Agreed).The profit for the year amounts to £2,380,356, to which must be added £807,436 brought forward from last year, giving a total of £3,187,792.'Hon. Members must have seen on the hoardings advertisements announcing that "Guinness is good for you." I do not know whether that is so or not, but, at any rate, it seems to be good for the shareholders. We have heard a good deal about equality of sacrifice, and I suggest that this is a great opportunity for the brewers to show an example to the unemployed, to the sailors in the Navy, and others by shouldering this burden themselves, instead of walking away with a profit of £25,000,000 a year.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI have always been opposed to taxation imposed in this way, because it is one of the worst forms of taxation. This tax will have to be paid by the poor working people who are being cut into so deeply by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. The imposition of taxation of this kind shows the callousness of the Government, and particularly of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has often identified himself with the temperance movement. Already the unemployed 861 man, who has been cut into so viciously and callously by the Budget proposals, is to have this further taxation imposed upon him. To me, the whole thing is an evidence of this jazz political world.
The figures that were given by the hon. Gentleman just now cannot fail to impress those who are seriously studying the financial situation. There has been a great cry about wastage. Here you find wastage going on, and, at the back of the wastage, you have the accumulation of wealth by the very forces which, metaphorically speaking, have gripped by the throat the two special representatives of the present Government who formerly represented the Labour Government. They are practically throttling the professed leaders of the Labour movement, and now they come along with this further deep cut upon those who are suffering. It is a serious anomaly. To impose taxation on a line of business that involves wastage all along, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is evidence of abject cowardice on the part of men who are specifically identified with the temperance movement, but have never had the courage of a mouse to tackle the problem in the way that it ought to be tackled.
The hon. Member who has spoken as a supporter of those workers who believe in having drink is following a logical line, and the whole mass of the Labour party who are agreeable to the supply of the beverage ought, logically, to be supporting him. They do not do so. They profess condemnation of the system, and disagree largely with its results, but, when it comes to the practical push of the business, they have fallen into line with those who think it would be well to take something out of this wealthy concern. But it is not coming out of the wealthy concern. Already those forces which are so strongly entrenched behind the temperance leader who is Chancellor of the Exchequer—those liquor forces whose names are familiar to us—say, "Let us grab all we can, and at the same time throttle the very customers who patronise our business." [Interruption.] I have read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting there smiling. In days gone by he put all the pretended earnestness into it, and those who were supporting him were not laughing, but were taking him to be in 862 earnest. Now I see him in reality in his proper place, backing the formidable forces, financial and otherwise, which are prepared practically to bludgeon the suffering poor of the country.
When it is a question of the Navy, it is said that that is a question of home defence, and quite another matter; that that is where there is danger to the financial interests; that it is insurance; that these men must be steadied, that they must be kept contented. Probably we shall see the police supported in the same fashion—[Interruption.] The feeling is coming up very strongly, But the poor, suffering, unemployed man, who has no one to look to, has been very nearly lost sight of in the whole slump of the Labour party. Very nearly the whole concern was swallowed up in the formidable forces that are now on the other side. It is God's mercy that His Majesty has an Opposition.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Resolution deals with beer, and nothing else but beer.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThat is perfectly true, but sometimes, as we can understand beer leads to a divergence. I bow at once to your ruling, but I am trying to get in what I have been boiling over to say. I am not with those who impose taxation on this product at all. I stand, and the hon. Member, if he is against this taxation, ought to stand, for the removal of the thing itself. That I could conceive to be a logical position. It is my own opinion, and it is on that ground that I am expressing my views here today.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEI have been looking for some tax among those proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which has not been suggested by the late Cabinet, and I should rather like to know whether this tax on beer was included in the proposals of the late Cabinet before they ran away. This bludgeoning of the unemployed, this throttling of unemployed poor people, seems to have been contemplated by the late Government, and the boiling over which we saw so well exemplified in the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson.) surely ought to be addressed to Members on his own Front Bench. If we are following in the footsteps of the late Govern- 863 ment, we may be following a bad example, but that, I suggest is the line that hon. Gentlemen opposite should take, instead of making unfair accusations against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, after all, has to balance his Budget, from which the late Government ran away.
I am naturally anxious, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), about the agricultural situation. A tax upon beer is a tax upon barley, of which some of the finest in the country is grown in my constituency, and, therefore, while I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this emergency, I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in regretting anything which even indirectly puts a possible burden upon agriculture. It is natural that people who drink beer should desire that its price should be lower, but I hope that the agricultural situation, which has been submerged in this morass into which the country has been plunged by the late Government, will not be altogether lost sight of, and that the best possible means may be quickly found to help that industry. I propose to support the Government.
§ Mr. McSHANEI rise to oppose this tax on beer. It is very significant that the only two speeches which so far have been delivered from the Government side have been delivered against this tax, and I should like to know whether the two hon. Members who have spoken in opposition to it are going to oppose it by their votes. I do not think that there is much fear of that, but it is poetic justice that the Conservative party to-day should be forced willy-nilly into the Lobby in order to put an extra penny upon beer, particularly when I remember that two years ago, at their party conference, one of the Tory speakers said that the best way to sweep the country at election time would be to reduce the Beer Duty by 1d. or 2d. I am not either a prohibitionist or a publican, but I take my stand on this general and broad principle, that, as far as I can in this House, I will prevent the putting of any further burdens of any kind whatever upon the working class. If this were an isolated tax, one could understand it, but as a matter of fact the whole of the working classes will now be affected by the new 864 Income Tax proposals, by the new Entertainment Duty proposals, and by the tax on tobacco, and the tax on petrol will indirectly affect them, while their wages are going to be reduced, because that is the main purpose of this Government, as expressed by Dr. Sprague. Taking all these things together, there is going to be placed on the working class an abominable and most grave burden, and I propose to do what I can to-day, and on every other day that follows, to lighten that burden.
I confess that I have not the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on this subject. Frankly, I would like to see less drinking of beer, and I think it is not without significance that 1d. per pint brings in £10,000,000 per annum. I regret it. I wish that less money were spent on beer and a good deal more on bread. If that were so it would be better for this country. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring reminds me of the man who said that, just as the strength of a chain lies in its weakest link, so the strength of a nation lies in its weakest drink. As I have said, this tax is not an isolated one, but one which, in conjunction with the others, will press unduly severely upon the masses of the population. I consider that there ought not to have been any additional taxation at all. I should have opposed any and every specific tax that was proposed, and for this reason. I do not for a moment wish to get outside the Debate, but the question of finance should not worry the country at all. If the international financiers cannot solve the question of how to distribute the wealth that is produced, it is not for us to make the conditions of the people worse, not only in this country but in every other country. Therefore, the Socialist view should be rigorously and vigorously, everywhere, to prevent the putting of any further burdens whatever upon the working classes, and to compel the other people to find a way out. I oppose the Resolution.
§ Captain RONALD HENDERSONThe House always listens with interest to the rare but very sincere speeches of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). To-day he used a peculiarly happy expression when he referred to this "jazz political world," and, if 865 I may say so without any disrespect, I think the same term might be applied to the Opposition. We have the amazing spectacle of one who, I believe, is the only prohibitionist Member of the House, rising to oppose this tax on beer. He deplores the amount which is spent in this country on beer, and yet, apparently, he deplores the imposition of any restriction upon that wastage.
I want to endorse the point of view which was put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) as to the effect that this tax will have on the revenue. I would remind the House that the consumption of beer in this country has fallen from, roughly speaking, 36,000,000 standard barrels pre-War, to less than 18,000,000 standard barrels. Many of us regard that fall without any great feelings of discontent, and probably much has been gained in that way, but, on the other hand, we have to look at the question from the revenue point of view, and, undoubtedly, this further impost will gradually diminish the revenue producing qualities of this Duty in the future. It will also, as has been pointed out already, deal a grave blow at the farmer. The suggestion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) that luxury imports should be prohibited, and the Cabinet are committed to considering that question. May I make this suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The importation of foreign malting barley might quite fairly be treated as a luxury import, and the Chancellor would be able to get. the revenue he expects from the impost, and would at the same time avoid hitting the hardly pressed agricultural industry, and especially the barley growing part of it. In the hope that that suggestion may be considered, I support the Resolution.
§ Mr. COCKSThe hon. and gallant Gentleman has paid a very real tribute to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour). We all admire the hon. Member's sincerity and we admire his precepts, even if we do not follow his practice. We had a very important. speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who represents a constituency which, I understand, is composed mostly of maiden aunts and elderly gentlemen.
§ Sir H. CROFTOf the 70,000 electors who returned me, the vast majority are working men.
§ Mr. COCKSI understand that there is a certain proportion. of elderly people, who will pass into the place where beer may be desired but will not be available. The hon. Baronet said that he and. his party were making a great sacrifice in voting for this duty. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. The other day he quoted Swinburne, who has always been criticised as being a master of sonorous nonsense. I wish to quote from a poem on beer:
Beer is the stuff to drinkFor fellows whom it hurts to think.Therefore, it must be a great sacrifice for the Conservative party to agree to a tax of this sort. What is the reason for this increased taxation of beer, which must really hurt hon. Members more than they care to think about? We know the origin of this Government. We know that, although beer is the national drink of England, although it is a thing that has made England, in the words of the poet, "what it is," there are other countries which do not enjoy the privilege of beer. We had a gentleman on the long-range telephone from New York who is suffering under prohibition ordering the British public to pay more for their beer. That is a very disgraceful position. I do not think this country has ever been in a position like that. Not only are the unemployed to have their dole cut down at the bidding of America, but their beer as well.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESDo you believe what you are saying?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI mean about the telephone.
§ Mr. COCKSI am giving an analogy. As the result of these orders, we have a coalition Government. There are some people who believe in beer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, does not believe in anything that adds to human happiness. We have a coalition on this question between bootleggers and prohibitionists. We stand for Labour and Liberty. I think Labour and Liberty will carry the country at the 867 next election against this disgusting combination of bootleggers and prohibitionists.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI am tempted to intervene by the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He quoted from a poem of Mr. Housman derogatory to beer. I should also like to give him a quotation from Mr. Housman in which he says:
The troubles of our proud and angry dustAre from eternity, and shall not fail.Bear them we can, and if we can we must;Shoulder the sky, my lad, and drink your ale.That seems to me a better and more apposite quotation than that which the hon. Member made. I am not going to pretend for a moment that we on this side of the House think beer is, on the whole, a bad drink. I think that it is a good drink and that, taken in moderation, its effects are entirely beneficial to the people of the country. I regret profoundly that the necessities of the financial situation cause us to have to put on this extra impost. The hon. Member opposite said that the Labour party stands for, I think, beer and liberty.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI never heard such nonsense as when we listened to the quite inexplicable speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour), who stands as a prohibitionist and yet supports the party opposite, all of whom complain that we are making beer more expensive to the working people. The only reason why we support what we must regard as an infliction upon the general community by the addition of this tax is that, while beer may be regarded, as we regard it, as a desirable commodity, no one can say it is a necessity, and in the very grave financial crisis in which we find ourselves there is a substantial additional revenue to be derived from beer. For that reason alone, we consider it our duty, not because we like it—and the same argument applies to many Resolutions for which we shall vote to-night—and it ought to be the duty of hon. Members opposite to support this taxation proposal in the Lobby.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)It is recognised on all sides of the House, but more, I think, on this side than on that, what a heavy burden these additional taxes inevitably are both upon the consumer and upon the various industries which contribute to them. Among the industries that contribute to the brewing of beer, the agricultural industry is a very important one. We fully sympathise with the point that was made with great justice by the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that the contraction in the barley acreage which might result from the contraction in the consumption of beer is undoubtedly a factor which would be an additional burden to the troubles under which agriculture is labouring. But what the Chancellor must get, and what this House must get, from the Resolutions that are under review, is revenue. This is one of the great revenue-producing duties of the British Budget and from this revenue duty my right hon. Friend is obtaining £1,500,000 this year and £10,000,000 in a full year. That alone is the justification for the impost, which we on this side of the House must regard as a grave impost upon the ordinary population.
We do not agree at all with the extraordinarily conflicting arguments which have been brought forward from the other side, and we find the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) thumping the drum in defence of beer. If he had not swallowed the principles he would make us suspect he had been swallowing something else. The idea of the hon. Member, who stands out for the most rigorous curtailment of the liberty of the subject that it is possible for any of us to conceive, standing up for what he calls the liberty of the subject and being picked up by the lion. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)—I enjoyed his quotation from Housman more than the rest of his speech—the hon. Member for Broxtowe standing up for liberty and the hon. Member for Dundee standing up for prohibition and cheaper beer seem to me as astonishing—
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURNo beer at all.
§ Major ELLIOTI think, on the whole, the workers of the country would prefer 869 that beer should be a little dearer, but that they should be able to get it, rather than the hon. Member should say, "In yonder secluded vault is a vast vessel of the most delectable beer, which could be sold at the cheapest possible rate if there was no taxation on it, but that vault is sealed and padlocked." I feel that the House, in fact, has accepted the proposal that the Chancellor has laid before it. There are two points of criticism that ought to be met. The first is that this has been passed on by the brewing firms to the consumer. I ask the House to remember that only last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained £3,000,000 of revenue, not a penny of which was passed on by the industry to the public, and it was impossible for the industry to bear out of its own pocket a further contribution on this occasion.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONIn spite of that, the firm of Guinness paid a dividend of 30 per cent.
§ Major ELLIOTThe firm of Guinness, as far as I know, has important relations with breweries which are not in this country at all. The fact remains that the industry last year was drawn upon for a substantial contribution which it did not pass on to the public, and that is the reason why it is not possible for it again to take so substantial an impost as this which the Chancellor has had to place on the shoulders of the brewery firms and the beer consuming public. Then he was asked, "Why not further taxations on wines?" Again, the Chancellor is not seeking to impose taxation but to raise revenue. It was found in the past that, when a duty on wines was raised, a very serious contraction in the revenue immediately took place and duty was remitted, not because there was a campaign to drink more wine, but simply because the Chancellor of the day desired to obtain the maximum possible revenue. He has to balance the height of the tax with the amount which he hopes to get from it. These are the only reasons why he has brought forward this Resolution, and I hope that it will be possible for the House to let us have it.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWe have heard a great deal lately, and shall hear a great deal more, about the effects 870 of certain duties on imports. I understand there is a fear that, if the duty on wines is increased, the consumption will fall off, and less will come in. As most of the wine comes from abroad, has the Treasury considered this point from the point of view of the balance of trade? We are told that, if an extra duty is put on champagne, port and other wines, people will not buy them.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Resolution deals with beer.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not want to stray from that except that the matter was raised from the point of view of the whole question of the taxation of alcoholic drinks. We are not altogether independent of French opinion, and especially French financial opinion.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HASLAMBefore we part with this subject. I wish to refer to the effect of this tax upon the poorest paid class of workers in this country—the agricultural labourers. [Interruption.] Yes, I am going to vote because additional taxation has become necessary owing to the action of the party opposite in running away in face of a national danger. I am going to support the Chancellor in the tax, but that is no reason why we should not make ourselves fully aware of the tax. I have on more than one occasion in Budget Debates drawn the attention of the House to the fact that our system of indirect taxation bears much more hardly upon the lower paid workers of the country than upon the higher paid workers. We tax beer and tobacco, and it is a flat rate paid equally by all consumers. Therefore this tax bears very much more hardly upon the agricultural worker than upon the higher paid workers of the cities and town.
There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Beer to the agricultural worker is generally considered, owing to his hard manual work, more of a necessity than it is to those engaged in more sedentary occupations. In the amenities of our country life the occasional visit to the village inn forms a very important recreation and amenity to the agricultural worker. The increase of this tax will undoubtedly deprive many an agricultural worker of that amenity, and will make 871 his life more hard and onerous than it is already. Having noted that the tax bears more hardly upon the agricultural worker and the lower paid members of the working class than upon the better paid workers, I desire, as I have on previous Budgets, to enter my protest against the
§ principle of this taxation. There is absolutely no reason why on this occasion I should not register my protest.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 143.
873| Division No. 471.] | AYES. | [5.5 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank, Capt, H, C. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Albery, Irving James | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Dawson, Sir Philip | Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Atkinson, C. | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Dixey, A. C. | Knight, Holford |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Balniel, Lord | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Eden, Captain Anthony | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Edge, Sir William | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) |
| Berry, Sir George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Elmley, Viscount | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dear-man | England, Colonel A. | Lockwood, Captain J. H. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Long, Major Hon. Eric |
| Blinded, James | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lymington, Viscount |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Ferguson, Sir John | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Boyce, Leslie | Fleiden, E. B. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Bracken, B. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Foot, Isaac | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Ford, Sir P. J. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Broadbent, Colonel J. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Fremantle, Lleut.-Colonel Francis E. | Mailland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Buchan, John | Ganzoni, Sir John | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Marjoribanks, Edward |
| Butler, R. A. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Markham, S. F. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Gillett, George M. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Meller, R. J. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Gower, Sir Robert | Millar, J. D. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Granville, E. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Gray, Milner | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Morris, Rhys Hopkins |
| Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Nall-Caln, A. R. N. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Church, Major A. G. | Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | O'Connor, T. J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Hammersley, S. S. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Hanbury, C. | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Harbord, A. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hartington, Marquess of | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Haslam, Henry C. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Purbrick, R. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Pybus, Percy John |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Crichton-Stuart. Lord C. | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Reid, David D. (County Down) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Bel[...]st) | Train, J. |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Smithers, Waldron | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Somerset, Thomas | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Ross, Ronald D. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Rothschild, J. de | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | White, H. G. |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, F[...]rnham) | Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Savery, S. S. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Scott, James | Thomas. Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Wood, Major McKenzic (Band) |
| Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Thompson, Luke | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Thomson, Sir F. | |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sir George Penny and Mr. Glassey. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Alpass, J. H. | Hoffman, P. C. | Ritson, J. |
| Ayles, Walter | Hollins, A. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Hopkin, Daniel | Rowson, Guy |
| Batey, Joseph | Isaacs, George | Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jenkins, Sir William | Sandham, E. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sawyer, G. F, |
| Bowen, J. w. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sexton, Sir James |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kelly, W. T. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Brooke, W. | Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Buchanan, G. | Kinley, J. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. B Elland) | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawr[...]e, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawson, John James | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Chater, Daniel | Leach, W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Cove, William G. | Logan, David Gilbert | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Longden, F. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Daggar, George | Lunn, William | Stephen, Campbell |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | McElwee, A. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Dukes, C. | McShane, John James | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Duncan, Charles | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Dunnico, H. | Manning, E. L. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Ede, James Chuter | Mansfield, W. | Tillett, Ben |
| Edmunds, J. E. | March, S. | Toole, Joseph |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Marcus, M. | Tout, W. J. |
| Egan, W. H. | Marshall, Fred | Vaughan, David |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Mathers, George | Walker, J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Maxton, James | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gill, T. H. | Messer, Fred | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Milner, Major J. | Watson. W. M. (Dunferm[...]ne) |
| Gould, F. | Montague, Frederick | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Morley, Ralph | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mort, D. L. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Muggerldge, H. T. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Naylor, T. E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Palin, John Henry | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hall, Capt. W, G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Paling, Wilfrid | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Hardle, David (Rutherglen) | Palmer, E. T. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Hardle, G. D. (Springburn) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Pole, Ma|or D. G. | Wilson, R, J. (Jarrow) |
| Hayday, Arthur | Potts, John S. | |
| Hayes, John Henry | Price, M. P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES — |
| Herrlotts, J. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Mr. Robert Richardson and Mr. |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Raynes, W. R. | Cocks. |
Third Resolution read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
874§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAre we not to have an explanation from the Minister?
§ Major ELLIOTThis is a Resolution which prevents the foreigner from having 875 any advantage over the British producer. It is generally agreed that there should be fair play on both sides. Therefore, as we have raised the duty on home produced beer, this Resolution raises the duty on foreign produced beer to a corresponding extent.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONMay I ask why the Government do not seek to keep out all foreign beer?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)That question does not arise.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI should like to raise one point, and I hope that in discussing tobacco we shall not have the hilarity that we always have had in regard to beer. They are both very serious questions. I hope the Financial Secretary will set a good example by treating the question of tobacco seriously. I understand that the cigarette manufacturers are not passing this increase of duty on to the consumer of cigarettes. I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any kind of understanding and, if so, whether there was any understanding about the size, length or quality of the cigarettes. My second question is this. Have any representations been made in regard to the price of pipe tobacco, the duty on which, it will be agreed, will particularly hit the poorest of the working classes. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend makes a remark about the pipe of the Lord President of the Council, but there could be no equality of sacrifice in putting one halfpenny an ounce on his pipe tobacco. Take the case of the agricultural labourer. We have heard much about him from the hon. Member opposite. He paid great lip service to the poverty of the agricultural labourer. He told us how his heart bled for him, but he had not the courage to come into our Lobby.
§ Mr. HASLAMI have the courage—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEROrder! What happened on the last Resolution does not arise on this.
§ Mr. HASLAMOn a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has cast reflections upon my courage, and I very much resent it. I should like to know if I shall have any opportunity of repudiating the charge which he has made.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I say that I congratulate the hon. Member on his courage in going against his convictions. The agricultural labourer, a very poorly paid man, the unemployed worker, who is unemployed through no fault of his own, soldiers, sailors and others who have had their pay cut, are pipe-smoking people.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHe does. That is where the hon. and gallant Member is misinformed. I believe the seamen do pay the Duty. That class of people are the pipe smokers, and it is most unfortunate that the increase in the Duty is being passed on to them by very wealthy corporations, the great tobacco trusts, who, in this time of industrial depression, have kept up their heavy profits and dividends. In some cases they have almost a monopolistic control of large sections of the industry. May I ask whether there has been an understanding in regard to pipe tobacco. Was there any understanding in regard to cigarette tobacco, or why was the wind tempered to the cigarette smoker and not to the pipe smoker?
§ Mr. McSHANEI oppose this Resolution on the same principle that I opposed the tax on beer. We have heard a great deal about equality of sacrifice. It reminds me of the story of a man who put a ladder into a very deep well. On the top of the ladder there was a man who had £10,000 a year. On the next step there was a man with £9,000 a year, and on the next lower step a man with £8,000 a year. The scale of income descended right down the ladder to the bottom. On the last rung there was an unemployed man, whose lips were touching the water. The gentleman at the top of the ladder, with his £10,000 a year, said: "Comrades, we must all make a common sacrifice. We must all go down a rung." Hon. Members can imagine the look on the face of the unemployed man at the bottom of the ladder, up to whose lips the water had risen, when he was asked 877 to go down another rung. That is a correct description of the whole of the proposals in the Budget in regard to taxation.
The working man will he particularly hit. The man who smokes his cutty pipe will be severely hit. When one considers that his wages have been reduced, that the Entertainments Duty has been increased, that the Income Tax will hit him, and we consider also the indirect taxation, his position is worsened when he has to pay a tax on tobacco. I say without hesitation that the conditions of the working classes are absolutely intolerable, without any further burdens. These burdens might well have been place elsewhere. This particular burden is one that ought to be opposed by our party. It is a remarkable coincidence that the taxation of tobacco originally came from the United States, and it is also a singular coincidence that the cause of this taxation that we are now discussing was ordered by bankers of the United States.
Sir F. HALLI have listened since last. Tuesday to all sorts of speeches, and I have not wasted the time of the House. I am surprised at the attitude of hon. Members opposite. I notice that some of the Members of the late Government took the precaution not to go into the Division Lobby on the last Amendment. I assume that in regard to the present proposals, considering that these proposals would have come from the Socialist Government and would have been accepted by every hon. Member opposite—[HON.:MEMBERS: "No!"] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "no," irrespective of the position in the country. I am sorry that this additional tax has had to be put upon tobacco. I remember that, seven or eight years ago, when an additional tax was placed upon tobacco, it was put on one year and taken off the next, because of the reduced amount of revenue obtained in consequence of the smaller consumption of tobacco. Surely, hon. Members opposite do not think that we like these taxes. We do not. We are swallowing these taxes simply and solely for the reason that we are not going to run away from any proposals brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are going to do our part as far as we can to help him once snore to build up the finances of this country in a proper way. 878 Of course, other suggestions might have been made for raising the revenue. Hon. Members on this side deplore the necessity for this increased taxation, but we are going into the Lobby, certainly I am, to support whatever proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward.
§ Mr. LOGANI am rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found so many friends on the opposite side. I remember the right hon. Gentleman talking about the coming of the Christmas season, with its clowns and pantaloons. To-day, we find a great deal of sympathy expressed by hon. Members opposite in regard to the electorate. They would not burden the people with any great hardship. They wish to make their lot better, but we find that we cannot get anything like justice for the working classes. In regard to the proposed taxation, one wonders what really has been the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other day he insulted us by saying that he had never seen the Members of this party until he viewed us from that side of the House, and looked us in the face. I am wondering whether he looked the present proposition in the face, or whether he spoke to the manufacturers in order to get the true position.
I cannot imagine why one who has professed such great love for the poor, but who has lost it since he crossed the Floor of the House, should have decided that cigarettes and tobacco were to be the subject of taxation. One would have thought, knowing the puritanical point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would certainly have said that luxuries should be taxed. If you are going to impose taxes on the people it will certainly be admitted by every hon. Member in the House that you should impose taxes on those luxuries which are not necessities of life. My memory goes back to a few short days ago when a late Prime Minister of a Labour Government reminded us that in the matter of the reduction of certain benefits to the poor all that was necessary was for us to tighten our belts in the present financial position of the country. Are hon. Members aware that so far as tobacco is concerned it may he regarded as part of the food of many of the poorer workers. I know many who have smoked a bit of 879 tobacco in the bottom of their pipe and gone without a meal. You say that this must be paid for by someone. When the manufacturer complains he gets the benefit of de-rating, the industry gets a subsidy. Now these people who got a subsidy, because, as it was said, they were passing through very hard times and found it difficult to make ends meet, will pass on this extra taxation in the form of smaller cigarettes or they will charge a higher price for them. In regard to tobacco there will certainly be an increase. This is not a luxury like a Corona cigar; it is a necessity for some of the poorest of our people.
Does this Coalition consider that they have the right to exact this charge from the poorest of the poor? I represent a great dock-side constituency, a population which to-day ought to have some measure of justice meted out to it by a House of Commons. But there is no sympathy or soul in this damnable Coalition, which to-day is exacting these taxes from our people. There is no need for me to mince my words. I would fight anyone who dares to meet me in the Scotland Division, from the Prime Minister downwards. I am prepared to say in this House of Commons what I say in the Scotland Division. This is a game of bluff. The Government are exerting their position as an unholy Coalition to exact from the masses of the people taxes which the electorate would never give them the power to exact. You have no right to impose these taxes on the poor. You would never get a mandate from the country, and if you had the courage of your convictions you would go and face the country. We have had a lot of bamboozling and codology in the last few days as to whether the Government will or will not face the country. The impertinence of any Coalition making these exactions from the people, when they have never had a mandate to do so, is beyond the comprehension of any right thinking man.
This Coalition, this co-operation, call it whatever you like, has no mandate whatever to bring forward in this House any such proposition as this. You talk about moral rights and contractual obligations with all the hyprocrisy which this unhappy combination can bring forward in a British House of Commons; 880 you talk of patriotism and of sacrifice, and we are asked willy-nilly to agree to anything you may bring forward. know that it is a very small matter about which to make a ceremony, an ounce of thick twist or a few packets of cigarettes, but the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) has reminded us that tobacco first came from the United States. I would remind the House that a very small question, a tax on tea, lost us the United States, and if history has a way of repeating itself I would say to the unhappy gentlemen opposite, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Prime Minister, the late lamented and no flowers by request, that just as a tax on tea lost us the American colonies so will the beer tax and the tobacco tax be remembered by many a poor man who has been told that for the sake of the nation's welfare he must tighten his belt and smoke an ounce of tobacco which has been so heavily taxed by the Government.
§ Mr. AMERYAs a non-smoker, I can hardly feel so deeply about the question of a duty on tobacco as the hon. Member who has just addressed us, and so far as his observations are concerned I would only say this, that as the late Government were not prepared to go as far as the present Government in the direction of cuts in order to balance the Budget, I can hardly conceive that they would not have included this particular item among their extra duties. I have risen just for a moment to point out the connection of this particular Duty with the very difficult problem of the balance of trade, the problem about which we heard so much yesterday. In connection with that position the trade which involves us in the heaviest direct loss of gold is that which consists of our imports from the United States of America. The overwhelming bulk of our purchase of tobacco, averaging about £15,000,000 a year, has in recent years come from the United States. The figures are slightly lower for last year, but the average is about £15,000,000.
In view of the immense deficit on our general trade balance with the United States, the fact that for the last six years they have sent us £140,000,000 a year more than we have sent them, means that this purchase of tobacco has drawn directly to that extent upon our stock of gold or the gold credits which we obtain elsewhere. 881 On the other hand, the purchase of tobacco from the British Empire is quite different. A very large part of our tobacco purchases from the Empire come from the Crown Colonies—Nyasaland is a Crown Colony—and these territories are actually on the sterling exchange. Their currency is kept at par and level with the sterling by the establishment of currency boards, and our purchases of tobacco, although they figure in our total list of imports, involve no strain on the gold standard whatever, no more than if we bought our tobacco from Scotland or from other parts of the United Kingdom. When we buy our tobacco from the Dominions or Colonies with responsible Governments, like South Rhodesia, their imports to this country naturally correspond to our imports to 'them, and buying from them does not involve a serious strain upon the gold standard. So far as we purchase from them so they are ready and able to purchase from us.
Therefore, the only point I desire to make, and I am not pressing for any alteration in this duty at the present moment, is the importance, when we are taking the question of our trade balance and the gold standard into consideration in the near future, of increasing still further and more effectively the preference we give. to tobacco from the Colonies in order to transfer the bulk of these purchases—I will not say whether they are a luxury or not—to a source which will satisfy the needs of our people and at the same time involve no strain upon our exchange. Indeed, it will help to liberate gold for world demand. The gold we send to the United States is buried there; the gold which is not sent there and which remains at the disposal of this country, with its old established tradition of investing overseas, is available not only for this country and the Empire but for world development as a whole and helps to keep up world prices. It may be a relatively small point but it is an illustrative point, because it bears on many other articles besides tobacco, and, therefore, I urge my hon. and gallant Friend, who I know has taken a very keen interest in this question, to keep in view the consideration of an increased preference for tobacco not merely from the point of view of the development of the territories concerned and 882 their trade with us, but also from the point of view of its effect on the maintenance of the gold standard in this country and the maintenance of world prices.
§ Mr. EDEI am quite sure that the 14,000 unemployed in my constituency will feel tremendously impressed when I recount to them the story we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and I am able to unfold to them that it is the miserable fag-ends of Gold Flake cigarettes which they smoke which has precipitated this appalling gold standard crisis in this country. We understand now that the gold standard crisis is really a Gold Flake crisis. After all, King Charles's head must come in and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the way in which he has managed to bring it into this discussion. There would appear to he many King Charles's heads, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. He has decapitated not one but many monarchs, and he is perpetually bringing their heads here on his oratorical pikes.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a non-smoker. Like him, I have to judge tobacco not by its effect on the palate, but by its effect on the nostrils. I gather that even he, with all his Colonial zeal, cannot bring himself to smoke Colonial tobacco. My friends who do smoke assure me that quality as well as place of origin has something to do with it. I would like to have a census taken of members of the party opposite who would smoke Colonial cigars in preference to Havanas. I am sure that the result would be most distressing to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and that Lord Beaverbrook would probably start a fresh crusade right away. There was the classic example of the Irish tobacco. In pre-War days there was no more popular Member of this House than the late Major William Redmond, but when he brought down some tobacco grown in his own constituency and passed it off on some of his friends in various parties, it almost removed him from their list of friends in the smoke room. With that disaster staring the right hon. Gentleman in the face I really hope that he will not pursue this advocacy in his own party, or he may find himself even further back from the Front Bench than he is now. I am waiting to hear a single right hon. 883 and hon. Gentleman opposite, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get up and say that he believes in this Budget.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERA right hon. or hon. Member would not be in order in doing so on this particular occasion.
§ Mr. EDEI was going to add the words "or any particular Clause of the Budget, any of the individual duties proposed." We know quite well that this is not the kind of thing that hon. Members opposite wanted. It is not the kind of thing that they believed they were going to get. I oppose this Budget, not for the reasons that hon. Members opposite have in their hearts for opposing it, but because I believe that every one of the taxes so far discussed is a tax aimed at making the poorest of the poor bear an unfair share of the burden. To an unemployed man who is to receive only 15s. 3d. a week a cigarette will become an absolute luxury. With regard to cigarettes, he will be like the Yorkshire local preacher with regard to cigars. The preacher was asked at the beginning of the year how many cigars he expected to smoke during the year, and his answer was: "It all depends on the generosity of my friends." That will be the extent of the cigarette smoking by the majority of the unemployed and the more poorly paid workers of the country. I hope that there will be a decided vote taken against every one of these proposals to spread heavily and still more heavily upon the poorest the burden of a crisis which was not their fault and in which they have no share.
§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDI cannot help but think that the hon. Member who has just spoken has taken a very narrow and ignorant view of the speech and opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). The hon. Member stated that he was a non-smoker. He showed his gross ignorance of the tobaccos which are grown within the Empire. I can assure him that to-day Empire tobacco is a very different thing from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. It is possible now to purchase Empire tobacco every bit as good as the best tobacco sold to us by the United States. In regard to cigars, it is possible to buy cigars manufactured in the Empire, from tobacco 884 grown in the Empire, Jamaican cigars for instance, which in my opinion are every bit as good as Havana cigars. Candidly I cannot afford Havana cigars, even if I wanted to have them, and I much prefer the Empire cigar.
Let the hon. Member think this matter over again and try to become a little more national and a little less international. Let him think a little more broadly and a little less narrowly, and he will see that the proposals of my right hon. Friend, in favour of our trying to do more trade with our Dominions and less with the United States, would he very much to the benefit of the working classes of the country, if not so much to the benefit of the working classes of the United States. I hope to see 1½d. an ounce placed upon tobacco, with a 1d. of that 1½. as preference in favour of Empire-grown tobacco. If that had been done before we should have seen a considerable reduction in the amount of foreign tobacco consumed in this country and an increase in the sales of Empire tobacco, which would have meant an increase of the wealth of our people overseas and would have enabled them to increase their purchasers of manufactures from this country. I hope that that point will be taken into consideration by some Chancellor of the Exchequer in future Budgets. Let me remind the House that the very things which are being proposed to-day and which we so much dislike, but which we support for the safety of the country, are the very things which were the pet schemes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he had the enthusiastic support of Members of the Labour party.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEI do not quite see the force of the references made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) to the subject of the gold standard and the consumption of Empire tobacco, because this Budget is imposing the same duty on Empire tobacco as upon any other kind of tobacco. It is a remarkable fact that hon. Members, from the Conservative benches particularly, are from time to time fond of pressing the claims of Empire tobacco and Empire produce upon the consideration of this House. Some time ago I took the trouble to find out for myself how far those Members put their principles of Imperialism into practice in this House, and I dis- 885 covered—no doubt the figures may have varied more favourably to Empire-grown tobacco by this time—that something like six or eight ounces of Empire tobacco was consumed by Members of the House, so far as they bought their tobacco within the precincts.
§ Sir W. WAYLANDHere is some Empire tobacco.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEThe hon. Member's example evidently is not followed by very many of his colleagues on the Conservative side, unless they buy their tobacco outside the House. A few days ago the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) in an interjection suggested as a common experience that unemployed men on the dole were able to smoke and to drink and to gamble. I do not want to consider this question solely from the point of view of the unemployed man. This tax upon tobacco is a burden upon the workers generally. It means a considerable number of pence every week in the expenditure of working-class folk, whose incomes really do not allow for very much variation in expenditure. The tax is a serious burden to the single unemployed man. The unemployed man with a wife and family to maintain, if he is able to smoke at all, will not be able to smoke much either of Imperial or any other kind of tobacco.
I want to take up one point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. That was in reference to what might have been suggested by the last Government regarding taxation under conditions of emergency. I was not a Member of the late Cabinet and I do not know at all what kind of discussion went on upon subjects of this character and upon what might be necessary in order to balance the Budget. I have no information at all on the subject. But, whatever might have been suggested upon the consideration either of a tobacco tax or a beer tax, we have to consider the matter in present circumstances in relation to the Budget as a whole, and really the burden of our objection is not so much to any kind of luxury tax, whether it affects the working class or any other class, considered by itself, as that it is the edge of a precipice so far as the ordinary, common, reasonable amenities of life are concerned, and must be considered in 886 relation to the possibilities of expenditure not only of the unemployed, but of the ordinary underpaid working-class man in the community.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEIf the proposal were made to tax tea and sugar, I should certainly oppose it. If the question was the taxation of tea and sugar on the one hand and on the other hand the taxation of beer and cigars and tobacco, I should prefer the tax on cigars and tobacco. But that is not exactly the case. The point is that this is taxation upon what is, even if a luxury, the kind of luxury which comes very near the margin of necessity for large numbers of people. It does add to the burden of the community and the poorest section of it. It does mean that there is a solace taken away from them, and that is on top of the other unfair burdens imposed by the Budget. It is because of that and not because of any isolated point of view or principle about the matter that we oppose this taxation.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Major ELLIOTThe House in reviewing this taxation may quite reasonably say that. an increase in the price of tobacco involves, as the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) says, an infringement of the amenities of life for those who are subject to the increase of price, whether poor or rich. I think it will be agreed by all that the enjoyment of tobacco is common to all classes of the community. The leader of our party has said as much in praise of the virtues of tobacco as any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in any part of the House. Let me bring the House back again to the reason why this Resolution has been reported to it. This Resolution has been reported from Committee of Ways and Means because the House went into Committee of Ways and Means to decide how the deficits in this year's and next year's Budgets were to be raised. The only reason why we were brought back here this autumn to sit in Committee of Ways and Means was the shortage of revenue which had to be made up. {HON MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may deny that statement, but at any rate they will 887 not deny that that is the reason for the presentation of this Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will not weaken on that point. That is the reason for the presentation of this Budget. We are here to consider what ways and means have been found by Committee of the House to be necessary for raising the revenue of which the country stands in need.
I ask the House to consider the consumption of tobacco and the revenue derived from it in recent years. The consumption of tobacco in 1913–14 was 98,539,000 lbs. In the years after the War that consumption rose to 125,678,000 lbs. It may be said that a great change in habits took place during the War; that the Army trained all male subjects to smoke, and that the increase of smoking among women was also responsible for a good part of that increase. But the increase did not stop there. The consumption of tobacco in 1924–25 had reached 129,103,000 lbs. and in the year 1928–29 it had reached 141,000,000 lbs. That is not the end of the story. In 1929–30 it went up to 151,000,000 lbs. and in 1930–31 to 154,707,000 lbs. It is clear that any Chancellor of the Exchequer looking for revenue would be bound to take notice of the increased consumption of this commodity—luxury or necessity, whichever it may be called. I do not deny what the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) has said that to a hard-up man, to a navvy or a docker, a "dottle" of black twist in the bowl of his pipe may be a great solace. Still a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the circumstances I have mentioned sees this commodity, which he has already taxed, showing an increase in consumption of 13,000,000 lbs. between 1928 and 1930. He is bound to see that the weight of taxation which has been imposed upon it so far has done nothing to check the consumption of that commodity.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore proposes an increase in the duty upon that commodity. The duty which is already taken from tobacco is very considerable. The increase which is £2,100,000, this year will be in addition to a revenue which is well over £60,000,000 in the year. I do not think 888 it can be contended that a revenue which has risen from £59,000,000 sterling in 1928–29 to £64,000,000 sterling in 1930–31 is not a revenue which would inevitably attract the attention of a Chancellor of the Exchequer seeking the ways and means of meeting a great deficit in his Budget. That remark applies not merely to this Government and not merely to the late Government. The late Government considered and approved in principle of the necessity for the increase of these very taxes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham)—the Chancellor-designate, if I may so call him—wrote an authoritative article on the subject in the official organ of his party and explained how lie would balance the Budget. He drew attention to the possibilities of this revenue and he explained that his scheme for balancing the Budget included increases of taxation on intoxicating liquor and tobacco. Therefore, we are all agreed that this taxation is necessary. We are all agreed that necessity drives us to find an increase of revenue and that this is one of the ways in which that increase should be found.
§ Major ELLIOTIt can always be argued about any taxation, (a) that it is too low, (b) that it is too high, or (c) that it should have been raised in some other fashion. But let me assure the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that to raise the revenue required, it is necessary to make such an increase as is proposed here. That brings me to the further point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He put a specific question as to whether the tobacco trade had been consulted and undertakings obtained in regard to this proposal. There has been no consultation with the tobacco trade and no undertakings were consequently obtained. This was an emergency Budget; the taxes were put on and the firms will need to deal with the question of how that extra impost upon them is to be borne, as best they can.
I think I have now dealt with nearly all the points raised by hon. Members save the point of considerable importance raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. 889 Amery). He drew attention to the fact, which, oddly enough, was challenged in some quarters of the House, that the strain upon our resources in purchasing from the United States of America was, greater than the strain upon our resources caused by purchasing from our Crown Colonies. I do not think anybody would deny that the percentage of trade which we do with every inhabitant of our Crown Colonies is much greater than the percentage of trade which we do with the inhabitants of the United States. I am not going into the vexed question of balance of trade, of triangular balance of trade or quadrilateral balance of trade, but I think we are all agreed that these heavy payments which we have to make to the United States are a considerable strain upon our exchange with that country. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook are proposals in which I myself in the past have taken a great interest and I shall certainly see that they are not neglected when these matters are being considered and reviewed. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) who said that those who ran down Empire tobacco were speaking in ignorance. Empire tobacco—the pipe tobacco and, in many eases the cigarette tobacco is tobacco which any man—or woman—in this House might not only be pleased to smoke but proud to offer to friends. I hope it will be possible now for the House to give us this Resolution.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEThe hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary with his accustomed skill has defended the taxes which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor proposes to impose in this additional Budget. My reason for taking a different attitude on this tobacco tax is the unfairness of imposing double and treble taxation upon the same people, and those people the poorer sections of the community. I can understand, where there is difficulty in balancing a Budget, a case being made out for putting some part of the burden on the working people, possibly, even on those with the most slender incomes, and if the balance of sacrifice had been sought by direct taxation on the well-to-do and indirect taxation falling on the poorer sections of the community, and if it. had been left at that, something like 890 equality of sacrifice might have been achieved. But this tax on tobacco considerable as it is falls, as an additional burden upon people who in other parts of the Budget are called upon to bear their share of sacrifice. Let me take one or two examples. Take the case of the civil servant. It is part of the Government programme that civil servants are going to have their salaries cut by the reduction of the bonus to 50 points from 55. In addition to that reduction of salary, they have to face this additional burden of the tax upon tobacco.
Take the case of the unemployed. They are to suffer the cut in benefit which the Government propose at present—unless that is one of the hardships which we are told are going to be modified—and they have to bear this tobacco tax on the top of it. We have been discussing, mainly by question and answer across the Floor of the House the position of members of His Majesty's Services, the Army and the Navy. Points have been raised as to whether the Government will alter their proposals in regard to these men but these men will not suffer merely the proposed cut in their pay if the Government proposals go through. The soldier or the sailor when he smokes his tobacco or chews his "quid" in addition, he mulcted through these taxes. That, again, is true of the teachers. According to the Government's original plan the teachers are to bear a heavy share of this attempt to economise at the expense of the salaries and wages of the country. But the teachers do not escape with that burden. Through these indirect taxes they will he called upon to bear an additional burden. [Interruption.] I understood the interjection of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) to mean that those who had large incomes would also have to bear that burden.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEI did not say anything of the kind. The hon. Gentleman said the soldier and the sailor would suffer and I merely remarked that so would he and so would I.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI understand the hon. Member for Kidderminster to mean that all sections of the community will have to hear their burdens. That is quite true, but the point that I think he overlooks is that 891 when you are dealing with persons with considerable means a small extra charge on tobacco is a very slight additional sacrifice that they are called upon to make, but where you are dealing, for instance, with a sailor, who is getting a shilling or two a day, or with a teacher, who, with a very great deal of expenditure, is only getting £100 or £150 a year, this additional taxation will press very heavily. Therefore, I propose to give my vote against this Resolution, because I do not consider that, in view of the heavy cuts that are being made and the reduction of income that is thereby being imposed on the poorer sections of the community, this additional burden ought to be placed upon them.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary explained that there had been no arrangement whatever with the tobacco houses with regard to how this duty would be paid. Therefore, we may take it that they may consider themselves free to take any course they may think fit in passing it on to the consumer, but we in this House want to be sure that while the consumer suffers, the revenue is likely to gain. In the case of pipe tobacco, if the consumer smokes the same amount of tobacco as before, the revenue will gain, but in the case of cigarettes there is an alternative way in which the manufacturers can pass on the expense to the consumer, which will not give any increase of revenue to the Exchequer.
If the cigarette manufacturers alter the shape or length or, generally, the weight of the individual cigarette, they can still sell a packet of cigarettes for roughly the same price, and consequently the consumer will be smoking less, though he will hardly realise what he is doing, and the revenue will not get the benefit of the increased taxation. That would be a most unsatisfactory result of this extra burden that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing. Perhaps on some future occasion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will enlighten us as to the prospect of that being the effect of what the Chancellor is doing, because if these sacrifices are to be made, at least we ought to have the assurance that the revenue will gain in consequence of what is being done.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEI had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but 892 in view of what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said regarding the burden which will fall upon those with small incomes because of this Tobacco Duty, I may be allowed to say a word or two, particularly referring to the curious position which arises owing to the fact that those who wish to save a little expenditure on tobacco, and particularly on cigarettes, have a course open to them. I well remember that at one time, when the Imperial Economic Committee, of which I was then a member, was holding an inquiry into tobacco, we were informed by representatives of all the great cigarette dealing concerns in this country that in fact the proportion of Empire tobacco which could be put into cigarettes entirely depended upon the peculiar taste of the cigarette smoker and that—
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEIt appeared from that inquiry that a very slight change in the taste of the cigarette-consuming public would enable a larger supply of Empire tobacco to be put into cigarettes, and there would then be an automatic reduction of price owing to the preference which Empire tobacco received. It seems to me, therefore, that if the cigarette smoker was satisfied to take a slightly different cigarette, he would in fact avoid the increased duty. Although the hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this is a sacrifice especially by those with low incomes, it is well to bear in mind that it is equally a. sacrifice by all and one which everybody can avoid by reducing the amount of tobacco smoked. Therefore, it is the fairest of all forms of additional taxation that can be imposed in an emergency.
It has already been said on these benches, in connection with the previous discussion, that we do not intend to vote for these further duties because we like them; we merely do so because it is a national necessity to do so. I think there is a good deal more to be said for this duty than there is for the last duty. In that ease I am extremely sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to make some arrangement by which that duty would not be passed on to the consumer, but the Tobacco Duty is the 893 fairest of all duties, and by taking Empire tobacco to a larger extent, the cigarette smoker can avoid it and—
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEPerhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to finish my sentence. Secondly, he can, of course, avoid the extra imposition by reducing the amount that he smokes altogether. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member who interrupted that if he looks up the evidence, he will find that the position is exactly the same with regard to the pipe smoker, except that in his case a very much larger percentage of Empire tobacco is already included in almost all the mixtures smoked, and therefore the only difference is that the pipe smoker is a better supporter of the Empire than the cigarette smoker.
§ Mr. ARNOTTThis proposal has been attacked on the ground of its injustice, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not attempted to meet that charge, but has sought to defend himself by saying that it is profitable, that the tax is bringing in more money and is therefore justified, and not only so, but that it is bringing in that extra money from a larger number of people. Therefore, whether it is a just tax or not is quite immaterial. That, I think, was the only defence put up for the tax. We are told that the Government have great courage and are quite different from their predecessors, and yet every act or proposal that the Government have brought forward, they have sought to justify, not on its merits, but on the ground that their predecessors were either going to do it or were considering it. There never was such a ease of a Government sheltering themselves behind their predecessors.
That defence was also brought forward by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland). There are rather remarkable associations sometimes, and we have had some very remarkable exhibitions in the Division Lobby during this Debate. He too alleged that this tax was recommended by the previous Government, and one might readily admit that a tax of this description might easily he considered by that Government, but this tax is part of a scheme. Hon. 894 Members opposite have always been vastly concerned, where the interests of the well-to-do were involved, in objecting to any proposal for double taxation. Our objection to this scheme is that it is a method of double taxation, and the Government have been careful to prevent us from discussing the taxation to which we take chief exception.
The proposals brought forward in the Economy Bill are a form of taxation and are excluded from being discussed in this House. The Government are going to adjust that taxation as they please, and it will fall on the very same people who will pay this tax, or rather on the people upon whom this tax will fall with the greatest severity. An hon. Member with a great rent-roll or who receives dividends from breweries or other prosperous concerns will not be materially affected by this tax, even if he buys the most expensive brands of tobacco, but the person who is to be subjected to Income Tax for the first time by the scaling down of the exemptions, or who is affected directly or indirectly by the proposed economy cuts, who may be an unemployed man or a man who may become unemployed for the first time as a. result of these economies, or who may have his wages reduced, which is the real object of the Economy Bill—any man subjected to these reductions or decreases or this taxation, because they are taxes when you analyse them, has to be subjected to this tax in turn; and the only defence made for the proposal by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that it is profitable and that more people. will pay it. That is the very ground for objecting to it. that it is taxing people who are paying more than their share already and whose sacrifices will be greater than those of other sections of the community.
Neither the previous tax nor this tax can affect me personally to the slightest degree. I am one of those who completely escape and who will follow the advice tendered by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), but although it will not affect me, I have a sense of fair play, and I know many people whom it will affect. I know quite a number of people who, if they are asked to sacrifice a necessity or this luxury, will prefer in many instances to sacrifice the 895 necessity and even to go short of food rather than do without their pipe. This, of course, will affect those particular individuals, and it will not affect them as a tax by itself, but in conjunction with other taxes, and will place a burden upon them of a very excessive character, when all those other things are taken into consideration.
For these reasons, I have no hesitation in opposing this tax, and even if I desired to support it, the Government have left me no alternative, because the Members of this House are not to be allowed to oppose or to amend in detail the real taxation to which they fundamentally object. If the Budget had been balanced by a fair scheme of taxation without special discrimination against people in certain employment, every Member would have consented to an increase of indirect taxation even greater than that. We have never been asked, however, to choose between indirect taxation and cuts in certain services. The poorer people have to accept both, and we know that the cuts will not stop with the Government employés. They will go through the whole field of industry, as they are intended to do, and we take the only means at our disposal to register our protest against that.
§ Mr. KELLYI listened with interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) that it was possible for people to avoid paying this tax if they would cease from smoking. That applies to all the taxes of this type. There is no doubt that if people ceased from buying the taxed articles, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster suggested, they would not have to pay the tax. It is a curious point for him to put forward when we was supporting this increased tax because it would raise more money for the revenue. I wonder whether there has been any arrangement with the tobacco manufacturers. I had hoped that the Treasury would have had something to say to the distributors, certainly those on the wholesale side, who have been advantaged in every tax that has been imposed on tobacco. These people have already put the halfpenny on the ounce of pipe tobacco, and I think, unless the Financial Secretary can prove something to the contrary, that that will mean an in- 896 creased revenue, assuming that the same consumption will continue. It will mean an increased advantage to the wealthy tobacco manufacturers. They are already deceiving the public in suggesting that they are not passing on the tax in regard to cigarettes. We have been examining some packets of cigarettes, and we have noticed how speedily the manufacturers can manage to reduce the size of the cigarettes and to secure an advantage to themselves from this tax.
The Treasury were not acting fairly to the public, and particularly to those who smoke pipe tobacco, when they did not see that this tax was not to be passed on by the manufacturers, who are already making millions of pounds, and have been for many years past. This is an unjust tax. Tobacco is one of those articles that are used by the people, and it is quite simple for the Treasury to make an attack upon it; but they might have had sonic regard to the people whom they were attacking in other directions, whose wages they were reducing, before they placed another heavy burden on them. It was stated by the Financial Secretary that the late Government has been thinking of imposing an additional tax on this article. They may have been doing that, but if they had attempted to come to the House with such a proposal, they would have found in this party such opposition that they would not have carried it through. There are many other ways by which the Government could have raised this money. There are many large incomes. The Government might even have made an attack upon the huge profits of the tobacco concerns. Instead of that, they have been thinking the whole time of how to attack wages and the articles which are largely consumed by the working people. it is unfair and unjust, and I hope that the people outside will realise that the Government pay little regard to the comfort of the people who make their livelihood by wage-earning.
§ Mr. HASLAMIt is somewhat striking that Member after Member on the opposite side of the House should rise and oppose this tax. The Financial Secretary clearly explained that the reason for this increased tax is the very large deficit, and that the reason for the great part of that deficit is the gross mismanagement which the party opposite 897 showed in the affairs of the country. Therefore, when the unfortunate bearers of this tax—the working people—are obliged to pay more for the humble comfort of a pipe, it is the party opposite whom they should thank for that blessing. I believe that when the working man takes that into consideration, and further reflects that the major portion of the late Government brought the country to the edge of financial disaster and then ran away, it will not improve his opinion of hon. Members opposite. I represent many of those who feel this tax, hut I am confident that they will place the blame in the right quarter, and I shall walk into the Lobby in favour of it in order to save the financial position of this country.
§ Mr. GEORGE HARDIEThe hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) attributes to the party which was previously in office, but not in power, faults which they did not possess. He seems to assume that all the difficulties were due to the two years that they were in office, but I am certain that he knows better than that. I am certain that he has a good knowledge of what a war does to any country, and that he knows of the effect of the last huge War on this country. The party with which he has been associated was responsible for laying the foundations after the War of all that we are suffering now. Not only did they lay the foundation, but even when they saw that the superstructure was twisted here and there, they always tried to buttress it instead of getting back to the foundations. The whole of what we are suffering to-day is due to an accumulation of faults by a people who were said to be victorious in the Great War. These troubles really began in 1919, when employers in this country made up their minds to make reductions in wages which were said to be too high.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI can hardly think that this retrospective history is in order on a Financial Resolution. We are dealing simply with the tax on tobacco.
§ Mr. HARDIEI was trying to show that the reason for the tax is what happened in the past.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will agree with me that that argument might apply not only to this but to every tax.
§ Mr. HARDIEThere have been abnormal circumstances, and I suggest that abnormal circumstances demand abnormal measures. The proper way is to make sure that what we are doing will see us out of our difficulties. Seeing that equality of sacrifice is the basis of the taxes now proposed, the proper way would have been to place those taxes on those best able to bear them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always made that the basis of his principles, and that ought to obtain now in order to give a sense of justice. If there had been that anxiety to deal justly with the people, there ought to have been a levy on the profits of the tobacco trust, on the millions that are growing year by year, over which we have no control. The hon. Member for Horncastle seemed to assume that when we were in office we had control over industry.
§ Mr. HASLAMYou increased the taxes on industry.
§ Mr. HARDIEWe tried as a minority to get back some of that which rightly belongs to the people. Your trading only exists because a large number of people are working—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe remarks of the hon. Member are calculated to induce other hon. Members to take up a discussion which goes far beyond the terms of the Resolution before us.
§ Mr. HARDIEI have no desire to do that; but I would like to point out that if we are to speak about equality of sacrifice, we ought to do it sincerely. It is a terrible thing to know from practical experience and through no fault of one's own, what want is. It is a terrible thing, when the country is said to be in danger, that an attack must be made upon those least able to bear it. I hoped the Government would have shown a spirit of equality of sacrifice behind their phrase, seeing that here was an opportunity of letting those huge trusts, over which we have no control, know that when a crisis comes they must part with some of their accumulations of vast wealth. There would have been more equality in making a levy upon their huge profits, but, apparently, we are not to get anything else but phrases so far as equality of sacrifice is concerned. With regard to the last Vote, I am a Prohibitionist—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot talk about the previous Resolution in this Debate.
§ Mr. HARDIE—and, personally, I use very little tobacco, but I am pleading for those who have become addicted to the habit, and I want the House to realise that this form of taxation strikes right down into the pockets of people who can afford only the lowest price tobacco. Unless they get a present, they seldom have a chance of enjoying a high-class smoke. I hope the Government will see that even
§ though there is a crisis they should act justly, and let the weight of taxation fall upon the shoulders of those who can best afford to pay. If the action you take is just, what you say about it afterwards does not matter.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 213.
903| Division No. 472.] | AYES. | [6.49 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Cooper, A. Duff | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Albery, Irving James | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hanbury, C. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Cowan, D. M. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Cranborne, Viscount | Harbord, A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover) | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxt'd, Henley) |
| Atkinson, C. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (1. of Thanet) | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G. |
| Balniel, Lord | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Dawson, Sir Philip | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) |
| Berry, Sir George | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Dixey, A. C. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
| Sevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon, Herbert | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Inskip, Sir Thomas |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
| Bilndell, James | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Bracken, B. | Elmley, Viscount | Kedward, R- M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | England, Colonel A. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Knight, Hollord |
| Broadbent, Colonel J. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Ferguson, Sir John | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Buchan, John | Fielden, E. B. | Law, Sir Allred (Derby, High Peak) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Foot, Isaac | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) |
| Butler, R. A. | Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Galbralth, J. F. W. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Ganzonl, Sir John | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Lockwood, Captain J. H. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Long, Major Hon. Eric |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Gillett, George M. | Lymington, Viscount |
| Cazalet. Captain Victor A. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Glassey, A. E. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) |
| Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Gower, Sir Robert | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Maclean, Sir Donald Cornwall, N.) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Granville, E. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Christie, J. A. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Church, Major A. G. | Gray, Milner | Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Granted, Edward C. (City of London) | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Marjoribanks, Edward |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Markham, S. F. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Mellar, R. J. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Calville, Major D. J. | Millar, J. D. | |
| Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. |
| Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Ross, Ronald D. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. | Thompson, Luke |
| Muirhead, A. J. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Titchfield, Major the Marqutss of |
| Nail-Cain, A. H. N. | Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D, L. (Exeter) | Salmon, Major I. | Train, J. |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Nicholson, D. (Westminster) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptsl'ld) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| O'Connor, T. J. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Savery, S. S. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Scott, James | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Peake, Capt. Osbert | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Penny, Sir George | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | White, H. G. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Perkins, W. R. D. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Power, Sir John Cecil | Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Smithers, Waldron | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff) |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Reld. David D. (County Down) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | |
| Remer, John R. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Rentoul, Sir Gerva[...]s S. | Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) | Sir Frederick Thomson and |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Captain Wallace. |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Leo, Jennle (Lanark, Northern) |
| Adamson, W, M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gill, T. H. | Leonard, W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gossling, A. G. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Gould, F. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Longden, F. |
| Amnion, Charles George | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lunn, William |
| Arnott, John | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McElwee, A. |
| Ayles, Walter | Groves, Thomas E. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Grundy, Thomas W. | McKinlay, A. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Barr, James | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | McShane, John James |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Benson, G. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Manning, E. L. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | Mansfield, W. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hardle, G. D. (Springburn) | March, S. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Marcus, M. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Haycock, A. W. | Marshall, Fred |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hayday, Arthur | Mathers, George |
| Brooke, W. | Hayes, John Henry | Maxton, James |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Messer, Fred |
| Buchanan, G. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mills, J. E. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Milner, Major J. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Herrlotts, J. | Montague, Frederick |
| Cape, Thomas | Hicks, Ernest George | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morley, Ralph |
| Chater, Daniel | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hollins, A. | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hopkin, Daniel | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Murnin, Hugh |
| Compton, Joseph | Isaacs, George | Naylor, T. E. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jenkins, Sir William | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
| Daggar, George | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Oldfleld, J. R. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Palin, John Henry |
| Day, Harry | Kelly, W. T. | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Palmer, E. T. |
| Dukes, C. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Duncan, Charles | Kinley, J. | Perry, S. F. |
| Dunnico, H. | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lawrence, Susan | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Potts, John S. |
| Egan, W. H. | Lawson, John James | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Raynes, W. R. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Loach, W. | Richards, R. |
| Gibbins, [...]oseph | Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Ritson, J. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonda) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Rowson, Guy | Sorensen, R. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Stamford, Thomas W. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Stephen, Campbell | Westwood, Joseph |
| Sanders, W. S. | Strauss, G. R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Sandham, E. | Sullivan, J. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Sutton, J. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Scrymgeour, E, | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Scurr, John | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Tillett, Ben | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shield, George William | Toole, Joseph | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Shi[...]ls, Dr. Drummond | Tout, W. J. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Townend, A. E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Shinwell, E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Vaughan, David | Wise, E. F. |
| Simmons, C. J. | V[...]ant, S. P. | Young, R, S. (Islington, North) |
| Sinkinson, George | Walkden, A. G. | |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Walker, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) | Wallace, H, W. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton. |
§ Mr. KELLYOn a point of Order. I wish to call attention to the violent and brutal way in which an officer of this House was treated by between a dozen and a score of hon. Members on the other side, when they forced their way through the door into the Division Lobby at a time when he was trying to close it and was holding on to it. Their conduct was of the worst that I have seen since I came to this House, and it certainly was a brutal and violent way of treating an officer of this House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe epithets used by the hon. Member do not seem to be quite justified by what happened, but as there is an interval of six minutes between the time when I first put the Question and the order is given to close the doors, I think hon. Members might take the trouble to come in earlier.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I put this point to you, Sir, as one who always upholds the Chair in this House? The direction was given that the door should be closed and hon. Members hustled—if I may use a milder term than my hon. Friend— a servant of this House: but I would ask whether there are any means of preventing that kind of thing by adopting some process for closing the doors automatically when tie time is up?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI said that six minutes seemed to me ample time. The way to stop it is for hon. Members to come in promptly.
Mr. MACLEANDoes not the conduct of these hon. Members come within the category of obstruction? You, Sir, had given instructions for the doors to be 904 closed, and an officer of the House acting on those instructions is prevented from closing the doors by hon. Members who had ample time within six minutes to get inside the Lobbies.
§ Mr. SPEAKERTechnically it might come within that category, but it is not the first time I have seen it done.
Fourth and Fifth Resolutions agreed to.
Sixth Resolution read a Second time.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, in line 2, after the word "oils," to insert the words "other than turpentine and white spirit."
This is a manuscript Amendment, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have expected notice of this Amendment, because he knew quite well we should move it, as we were bound to do, in the interests of the employment of a great number of people in our constituencies and of the welfare of very important industries in the city of Hull, which the hon. Member who will second the Amendment and I have the honour to represent. Earlier this Session a similar Amendment was moved and supported by the whole of the Conservative party and a number of members of the Liberal party. I hope they have not altogether lost their sense of justice and right by crossing the Floor of the House, and I therefore look for their support to this Amendment as a simple act of justice. I am glad to see that one of the hon. Members for the East Riding of Yorkshire is here. I am sure we may rely on his support, for he made an impassioned speech on the previous occasion in favour of the Amendment.
905 I do not want to go over the whole ground, which has been gone over in Parliament again and again, and has always been admitted as a just ground by the Chancellor himself. He practically promised us last year that he would remove this oppressive duty. It is a revenue ta[...]ff and a tax on a raw material, white spirit and turpentine, which should never have been imposed in conjunction with the petrol duties. Turpentine cannot be used in any kind of engine. It is only used for making lino, paint, polishes and other materials. White spirit can be used in some kinds of caburettors, but when there was no duty on it, although it was considerably cheaper, it was never much used. There is no question of white spirit being used in engines, and it is therefore a revenue tax—that awful thing which the right hon. Gentleman is so fond of decrying. It is a tax imposed on a vital raw material in an industry which has to fight in the export market. A rebate is given if the manufactured goods are exported, but it not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to be told that the loss and inconvenience caused by delays in paying the duty and then recovering it, filling up documents and going into the excise offices and answering questions and so on, is an almost intolerable hindrance and nuisance to men engaged in a perfectly legitimate industry.
I will tell the Chancellor this, which I hope he will use in the fight which he is waging. The manufacturers of paint and turpentine in my constituency, which is the biggest centre in the country for the industry, had admitted to us that they were tariff reformers, but their experience of this duty and the annoyance to which they have been put have converted them to Free Trade. I tell him that in case he comes to Hull again. The country may be in difficulties, and he may say he needs the revenue, but we know perfectly well it is necessary to increase the export trade, and this is a direct hindrance to any increase of that trade. Rather than put a tax on raw materials in goods which play a part in paying for imports of wheat and food, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be giving us a bounty. That would be much more sensible, for it would be constructive, while this is simply hindering many manufacturers of lino and paint who have to compete in the world markets 906 with their rivals in Germany, France and other countries.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he agrees with every word I have said so far, yet he will get up and say that he would like to be able to do it, but that he is sorry he cannot for he needs the money. While he is raising money where he can, he is picking out a number of industries for taxation of raw materials, and this extra 2d. will be very oppressive. There may be a ease for a general tax on petrol—I am not discussing that, now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) will deal with that. That is a protective duty. The right hon. Gentleman had given some measure of protection to the industry which extracts petrol from our own coal, but you cannot extract turpentine from coal. He might just as well put a, tax on cotton. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not raising this matter in any party spirit at all. The fact is that my hon. Friends and myself have moved this Amendment in previous Budgets. I moved it when I was in Opposition to the then Conservative Government, and also when I was supporting the right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House. I hope that the Conservative Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) will not forget all he said on this very important matter when in Opposition. I, therefore, commend this Amendment to the House, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something to help British industry and employment, because everything he has done so far in the present Government has been a great injury and hindrance to it.
§ Mr. ARNOTTOn the last occasion when we debated this matter, we had speeches from every side supporting the Amendment, and we had a remarkable amount of support from the Front Opposition Bench and from some Members who are now Members of the present Government. One of those Members actually indulged in prophecy. He said that if there was such a thing as a National Government and a Council of State formed in this country, that would be the proper time to abolish by mutual consent a tax of this description. That was the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), who is now a 907 Member of such a Government. I shall be interested to see if he votes the same way as he did a few months ago, and if he makes the same kind of speech, because it is not merely a question of ins and outs. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead did not talk about what could be done if a Liberal Government were returned, however remote he may have thought it. He said that if a Government of this description were formed, it should be done—and perhaps he thought that was a remote possibility as well. I urge him to use all his influence, if he has any at all with the present Government, to bring about this reform. This tax is more than an ordinary protective tax. An ordinary protective tax would no doubt help one industry at the expense of the rest, and it would injure a number of others, and we can nearly always count on the other industries making a protest. The industries affected by this tax have made a protest and their Members, regardless of party, have protested in this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has reminded us that the Members for Hull have spoken against this tax and have moved Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) was the most enthusiastic Member of all on the last occasion, and we shall watch with interest to see what he does to-day. This tax affects an industry which is virtually confined to certain areas in the country. It is not one of our big industries, but it does seriously affect certain of the Hull constituencies, Birkenhead and Wolverhampton. Consequently, all Members representing these districts have made their protest, and that protest was voiced and emphasised by the present Minister of Health, who agreed with me that we had had a great many favourable words from the Chancellor, but nothing in the way of performance. That is equally true to-day. While this tax is objectionable in itself, it is even more objectionable when we have it in connection with other demands which are being made on a great number of people. This is the direct taxation of a small industry, and the tax is proposed on a particular commodity because that com- 908 modity comes under the same definition as another commodity which is taxed.
The case for taxing petrol was stronger before the present Government was formed than it is now, because it is connected with a tax on road transport, which it was held was treated very favourably in comparison with the railways. There was a case for a tax on petrol before the Road Fund was dealt with, but the tax we are now discussing has not even that justification. There is no resemblance between the uses of turpentine and petrol which are used for quite dissimilar purposes. The tax on turpentine was included in the Budget by an accident, and it has been retained because it has been found to be profitable. It is all very well to say that the industry can stand the tax. There might be an argument for it as far as that point is concerned, but that has nothing to do with the case. The point is that this particular industry has been singled out for taxation, and no Member of the Government has given any reason for taking that course.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) said that my answer to his appeal to accept this Amendment would probably be that, although I had a good deal of sympathy with his proposal, in the present circumstances I would not be able to sacrifice the extra revenue. That, indeed, is precisely the answer that I have to give. I could not possibly afford at the present time to forgo this extra amount of money.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat is the amount involved?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI have not looked into this matter since it was discussed in Parliament, but if I remember aright the amount was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000—I think it was £400,000.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWhat is the yield of the extra 2d?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThe total amount of duty on the two articles is £700,000 and I think the amount in the case of turpentine is about £400,000. As to the amount represented by the extra 2d., 909 I should say that the extra sum would be about one-fourth, that is £200,000, and that is a sum which I could not possibly surrender on this occasion. I can only ask the hon. and gallant Member to live in hopes during the next 12 months, and at any rate he and his colleagues will have the satisfaction of knowing that, although it is not possible for me to accede to their request, their constituencies will see that their representatives have been looking after their interests.
§ Mr. EDEI gathered from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that we on this side of the House are not going to be here much longer, and that before long we shall be sitting on the other side. I do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is going to be on the
§ other side much longer, although from what he has just stated he appears to be of the opinion that he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer next year. On behalf of my constituents I desire to protest agains the continuance of this tax. It is an impost on a raw material used in dyeing. There is a dye works in my constituency employing a considerable number of men, and accordingly they have consistently protested against the imposition of this duty and its continuance. I hope that these people will get more justice from the next Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer than from the only one we have had up to the present moment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 284.
913| Division No. 473.] | AYES. | [7.25 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Gill, T. H. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gossling, A. G. | Longden, F. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gould, F. | Lunn, William |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McElwee, A. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan) | McKinlay, A. |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Groves, Thomas E. | MacNeill-Weir. L. |
| Ayles, Walter | Grundy, Thomas W. | McShane, John James |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Manning, E. L. |
| Barr, James. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Mansfield, W. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | March, S. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Marcus, M. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hardle, David (Ruthergien) | Marley, J. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hardle, G. D. (Springburn) | Marshall, Fred |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mathers, George |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Haycock, A. W. | Maxton, Jamas |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hayday, Arthur | Messer, Fred |
| Brooke, W. | Hayes, John Henry | Middleton, G. |
| Brothers, M. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Mills, J, E. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Miner, Major J. |
| Buchanan, G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Montague, Frederick |
| Burgess, F. G. | Herriotts, J. | Morgan Dr. H. B. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morley, Ralph |
| Cape, Thomas | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Carter, w. (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Hoffman, P. C. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Ho[...]ins, A. | Mort, D. L. |
| Chatar, Daniel | Hopkin, Daniel | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Horrabin, J. F. | Muggeridge, H. T. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Murnin, Hugh |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Isaacs, George | Naylor, T. E. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jenkins, Sir William | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Compton, Joseph | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) |
| Cove, William G. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Daggar, George | Kelly, W. T. | Palin, John Henry |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Day, Harry | Kinley, J. | Palmer, E. T. |
| Dukes, C. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Duncan, Charles | Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) | Perry, S. F. |
| Dunnico, H. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lawrence, Susan | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Edmunds, J, E. | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lawson, John James | Potts, John S. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Egan, W. H. | Leach, W. | Raynes, W. R. |
| Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richards, R. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Leonard, W. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley) | Logan, David Gilbert | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Rowson, Guy | Sorensen, R. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Stamford, Thomas W. | West, F. R. |
| Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) | Strauss, G. R. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Sanders, W. S. | Sullivan, J. | Whitetey, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Sandham, E. | Sutton, J. E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Scrymgeour, E. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Sherwood, G. H. | Toole, Joseph | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Shield, George William | Tout, W. J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Townend, A. E. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Vaughan, David | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Simmons, C. J. | Viant, S. P. | Wise, E. F. |
| Sinkinson, George | Walkden, A. G. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Walker, J. | Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wallace, H. W. | |
| Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Watkins, F. C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Mr. Arnott and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. |
| Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Colman, N. C. D. | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles | Colville, Major D. J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cooper, A. Duff | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cowan, D. M. | Hammersley, S. S. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Cranborne, Viscount | Hanbury, C. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Harbord, A. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Crookshank, Capt. H, C. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Atkinson, C. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hartington, Marquess of |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Dalkeith, Earl of | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) |
| Balniel, Lord | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hore-Belisha, Leslie |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Blindell, James | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Inskip, Sir Thomas |
| Boyce, Leslie | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
| Bracken, B, | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | England, Colonel A. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) | Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne) |
| Broadbent, Colonel J. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Everard, W. Lindsay | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Buchan, John | Ferguson, Sir John | Knight, Holford |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Fielden, E. B. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) |
| Butler, R. A. | Foot, Isaac | Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Ford, Sir P. J. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) |
| Campbell, E. T. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Hands v'th) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Gillett, George M. | Lockwood, Captain J. H. |
| Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Long, Major Hon. Eric |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W.) | Glassey, A. E. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Lymington, Viscount |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gower, Sir Robert | McConnell, Sir Joseph |
| Christie, J. A. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Church, Major A. G. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Gray, Milner | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) |
| Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Remer, John R. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Marjoribanks, Edward | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) |
| Markham, S. F. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Meller, R. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. |
| Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Millar, J. D. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Thompson, Luke |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Ross, Ronald D, | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury) | Train, J. |
| Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Salmon, Major I, | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Muirhead, A. J. | Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Nail-Cain, A. R. N. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Savery, S. S. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| O'Connor, T. J. | Scott, James | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | White, H. G. |
| Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.J |
| Owen, Majar G. (Carnarvon) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Peake, Captain Osbert | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Penny, Sir George | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Perkins, W. R. D. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Smithers, Waldron | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Pybus, Percy John | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Southby, Commander A. R.J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Captain Margesson and Viscount Elmley. |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
Seventh Resolution agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Mr. SHINWELLI rise, not to oppose this tax, but for the purpose of eliciting certain information from the right hon. Gentleman, and of inviting the attention of the House to the somewhat piquant position in which we find ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing his principal Budget this year, referred to the Petrol Duty as one primarily and essentially designed for the purpose of raising revenue. He was careful to point out that it was in no sense a tax imposed for protective purposes, and, if I remember his language aright, he stated that he would take the earliest opportunity of dispensing with this imposition. The right hon. Gentleman's position with regard to these taxes is perfectly clear. His desire is to raise revenue. But, on the other hand, the considered opinion of his assistant, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that this tax and similar taxes are protective in their character. I leave that aspect of the question alone for the time being, but, while not opposing this tax, it must be clearly understood that I am speaking for myself and those behind me when I say that we do not regard this imposition as one which industry can afford to bear.
914 It is perfectly true that, if we are committed to indirect taxation, a tax on petrol is as good as any for that purpose; but we cannot blind ourselves to the obvious fact that we are now witnessing the placing of a further and serious burden upon the shoulders of industry. I would remind the House of what this actually represents in figures, it represents, with this imposition, a total burden of £28,000,000 annually. That is a very serious burden indeed. It may be claimed, and it certainly will be claimed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, though not by the right hon. Gentleman, whose views are well known, that this further imposition will conduce to the advantage of the home oil-producing industry. As to that I would say this. If it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those associated with him, including the Financial Secretary, to render assistance to the home oil-producing industries, there are other and better ways of so doing.
I should like to invite the attention of the House to what has happened in recent months with regard to this question. There is in Scotland, in my own constituency and in the adjoining constituency represented by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), the shale oil industry, 915 producing light spirit from shale. That industry has undergone many and serious fluctuations since the War. The number of persons employed in it at the close of the War was in the region of 12,000. Subsequently there was a severe curtailment, and—and this is exceedingly important in relation to the matter under review—in spite of the imposition of a Petrol Duty by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which might be regarded as advantageous to the shale oil industry and cognate industries, another serious curtailment of the industry occurred, and a large number of men were disemployed.
Some months ago the attention of the late Government was directed to the parlous plight of this industry, and we proceeded to consider suggestions and proposals from those engaged in the industry and from others with a view to finding a solution, or at least, a partial solution, of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman had the matter under review, and he added, entirely apart from this consideration, but for revenue purposes, a further 2d. to the Petrol Duty. I confess without hesitation—I speak quite frankly—that, in the circumstances then confronting us, I regarded it, and many of my friends so regarded it, as beneficial to the home oil-producing industries, including the shale oil industry of Scotland. It represented an increase in price and a preference to the home industry. But, although it represented an increased yield and a preference, it was not protective in character. It did not restrict the importation of foreign oil. The importation of foreign oil has increased all along the line, in spite of the latest imposition and those preceding it, and, if I understand the position correctly, a protective duty is a duty designed to restrict the importation of a foreign commodity. Manifestly in this case that did not happen, and it became clear to those interested in the industry that the imposition of a tax was inadequate for the purpose.
Thereupon submissions were made to the right hon. Gentleman, which no doubt he will recall, calling for, among other things, a direct subsidy amounting to something like £150,000 annually, which might, in the opinion of those who supported the proposal, have met the diffi- 916 culty confronting the industry at the time. [Interruption.] It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has interjected, that it meant more than that. Admittedly that is so. With the reduction in the price of imported oil, the amount of subsidy required gathered in strength, and naturally that was bound to be the case. But further submissions were made to the right hon. Gentleman. At a later stage it was represented to us by those engaged in the industry, men and employers alike, and by experts, that no mere imposition of a tax, however high, whatever its yield, or whatever the effect on prices might be, would be sufficient for the purpose, and then a quota arrangement was suggested, that is to say, that for every gallon of home-produced oil—shale oil was not the only commodity under review—there should be an admixture of the imported article, and the accumulated effect in price would provide the home oil-producing industries with a higher yield. I need not go into the technicalities of the proposal hut, broadly, that was the submission made to us.
The Department for which I had some responsibility, and the Board of Trade, regarded the proposal on the whole favourably. In ordinary circumstances they might have rejected it, but, having regard to the very serious position of the industry—not only did it affect the shale oil industry, but low temperature carbonisation processes were similarly affected—it was thought that a quota arrangement might be satisfactory. It would have represented an increase all over of something like.£2600,000 to oil consumers. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is as much opposed to the quota proposal as he is to Protection in the ordinary sense of that term, but I do not hold the view that a quota arrangement is Protection in the ordinary sense of the term. In any event, there are many of us on this side of the House who, although we do not regard Tariff Reform, Protection, or Preferences as advantageous to British industry, certainly do not regard unlimited and unfettered Free Trade as desirable. Some thing in the nature of regulation of imports is required. These proposals were submitted to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says they came afterwards. In fact, they were submitted personally 917 by the President of the Board of Trade to the Prime Minister. The matter was urgent, and were entitled to believe, having regard to all the circumstances, to the almost frenzied claims and appeals of those engaged in the industry—the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) saw the President of the Board of Trade and myself and, if I am not mistaken, he saw the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENWe had better get this matter right. The hon. Gentleman knows that I had prolonged conversations with himself and others in regard to the condition of the shale oil industry. He will not deny that I showed the greatest sympathy with it and would have adopted any practical proposal of assistance. When I finished off was before a deputation met the President of the Board of Trade in Edinburgh representing, I think, the various local authorities in that part of Scotland, and the only knowledge I hare about a quota having been suggested—because it was never suggested in the previous conversations—the first intimation I had that a quota had been suggested was a newspaper report. It is not within my knowledge that the President of the Board of Trade reported to the Prime Minister. I have no doubt he did, but it will be remembered that that deputation was received by the President of the Board of Trade just about the time when the financial situation became very difficult. I dare say that it is the explanation why the matter was never brought before me.
§ Mr. SHINWELLI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I should he the last to dispute that he has always displayed sympathy with proposals put to him. It is the sympathy that is characteristic of him that has amazed some of us to find him in his present position. No one deplores that more than I do, as I think he well knows. There is no doubt that the other submissions made to the right hon. Gentleman were all rejected. Whether the quota was submitted to him or not—this is the first time I have heard that it was not submitted to him—it was certainly submitted to the Prime Minister and departmentally endorsed by the Mines Department and the Board of Trade; and, whether these subsequent proposals came before him or not, it is 918 clear that, if this further imposition of 2d., or even a penny, making 3d. in all, had been made in the main Budget of this year, there would have been no curtailment in the operations of the home oil producing industry. I see the dilemma that the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary are in and, indeed, that almost engulf myself, for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman does not mean this to be a Duty of a protective character. It is revenue in its purpose. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes it to be protective in character. That is the dilemma that both they and I are placed in.
If the right hon. Gentleman had been anxious and willing to assist the home oil producing industry and, instead of imposing 2d. in the original Budget of this year, had imposed 3d., that industry would have been saved for the time being, because of the increase in the yield. I do not suggest that it would have been permanently saved. If I were to suggest that, the right hon. Gentleman would dispute it at once, whatever his associates might care to think about it. But the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity, with the knowledge that he possessed at the time, to assist this industry, and he failed to do so. Here we have an industry which is practically going out of existence, with thousands of men disemployed, whole areas devastated, the valuation of the area affected, and many business people, shopkeepers and the like, suffering intensely. I want to make it perfectly clear, whatever may be said to the contrary, that the imposition of the tax at this time is belated from the standpoint of assisting the industry and can render no help. Therefore, it boils itself down to the question of whether this is an imposition on industry in general. As to that, there can be no doubt whatever. There is an imposition of.—28,000,000 annually. No doubt something will be said from these benches, and from the benches opposite, as to the effect of such a tax on the transport industry. If we have to consider indirect taxation at all, I should prefer that sort of taxation, which is of a general character in the main, to any other form of indirect taxation that can be imposed.
There is one question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the uncertainty of this tax in relation to 919 the home oil producing industry. A tax that can be removed or reduced by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is believed to be protective or not, certainly disturbs the home oil producing industry. That cannot be disputed. They never know whether they are going to get the benefit of the increased yield and the result of the preference accorded or not. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered, I will not say the stabilisation of some preference, but some alternative form of financial assistance. Perhaps the proper person to put that question to would not be the right hon. Gentleman, because he does not believe this tax is protective in its character. He is a Free Trader undiluted. I should put it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He believes in Protection. He believes these preferential taxes are protective in character. Can he give any assurance that some alternative form of assisting these home industries will be afforded other than the imposition of this tax, which is subject to wild fluctuations? The main points that I have submitted for consideration are that, if this tax was intended to help the home industry, it has failed in its purpose. Secondly, in itself it imposes a severe burden upon industry in general. Thirdly, if it is intended to help home industry, there must be something in the nature of an assurance by some form of alternative machinery that home industry will not be subject to these violent disturbances.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Major COLVILLEThe hon. Gentleman has put himself into a very curious and difficult position. I really could not gather whether he was opposing or supporting the Petrol Duty, but I took it from the burden of his speech that he regarded it as an unjustifiable burden on industry, useless to maintain or to do anything for the oil industry in this country at the present time, ill-timed and, therefore, one to which he and his party would object. He must know that in the shale oil industry there are employed rather over 3,000 people. He must know that at present their employment is in daily jeopardy owing to the world price of oil. He must also know that, unless this tax had come on at this present time—I am not going to argue 920 whether it was imposed for protective purposes or not; I am going to argue results rather than intentions—there was the very strongest probability that in that industry further sections of plant would have been closed down and that within a very short time unemployment would have been greatly aggravated in the Lothians. No one is more familiar with those facts that the ion. Gentleman. He says that, during the period of his office as Secretary for Mines, this matter was constantly under review. He did not succeed in putting forward any acceptable scheme which would have relieved the industry. He put forward certain schemes. They were not adopted. He felt very strongly about them. Why did he not resign his office when this industry, which is the principal one in his constituency and an important one in Scotland, could not in his opinion, and to use his own words, get fair play? That is a fair question to ask him, and I think that it should be asked not only here but in other parts of the country. The position is, as has been mentioned by the late Secretary for Mines, that a further proposal was put up more recently regarding a quota scheme. The hon. Member did not mention that that proposal was not made by him or by anyone of his party. It was first made by a Conservative Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), but the hon. Member did not think it worth while, when commending that scheme to the House generally, to say that it did not emanate from his own fertile brain or from anybody on his side of the House. That scheme is still under consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said very properly that it never came before him, and for the hon. Member to suggest that the newly-formed Government are to be blamed for not putting into operation a scheme which has only been considered by the representatives and Ministers of the late Government is a most unfair accusation to make.
The scheme will be considered on its merits, but it is not part of the Financial Resolutions of the Budget with which we are dealing to-night. We are dealing purely and simply with the tax which the hon. Member has opposed to-day on the 921 ground that it is an unfair burden upon industry. Let him say that in his constituency.
§ Mr. SHINWELLMay I tell the hon. and gallant Member that I opposed the petrol impost by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) some years ago, told my constituency, and was returned in spite of that?
§ Major COLVILLEIn view of the recent happenings in that particular industry the hon. Member will find it a little more difficult to justify his attitude in the House of Commons to-night. On the question of this tax generally, let us recognise that it is a widely spread tax. In view of the fall which has taken place in the world price of oil it is a burden not unduly grievous to bear. Although the intention of it may not be protective, I welcome the effect it has had upon our Scottish industry and upon the production of oil in this country generally. Other measures will he necessary. I am certain of that, but I recognise that as a result of this tax the employment of a large number of men at any rate has been safeguarded for some period until there is a breathing space to examine further measures for their protection.
§ Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed.
§ Ordered, "That Consideration of the remaining Resolutions be now adjourned "—[Captain Margesson.]
§ Eighth and subsequent Resolutions he considered To-morrow.