FOREIGN WORKERS (ENTRY PERMITS). (Hansard, 7 December 1932)

§ Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX
I wish to raise a question of which I gave private notice yesterday to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I wish to ascertain what principles govern the advice given by the Board to the Ministry of Labour regarding the admission of aliens to this country as teachers of British workers in new processes to be established here. The question that I put yesterday was answered, I consider, in the most evasive manner. It is a common custom for Ministers, junior and otherwise, to try to ride off back bench Members and to put the blame on other Ministries. Everyone knows that actual permits for aliens coming into this country are issued by the Ministry of Labour, but in a concrete case like that in my constituency, of a firm which desired to establish a factory here and, in order to make that factory possible, desired to get a permit for 12 months only for two German workers to come here in order to instruct 30 of my constituents, who would be permanently employed, presumably, the Ministry of Labour could have no possible interest in excluding those two alien workers, who, so far from taking work from British workmen, were about, by their instruction, to provide work for 30 of our own people.
There is an old-established glass firm in Germany which has been supplying several wholesale English houses with retort glass and chemical glass for over 30 years. Owing to the exchange and to the tariffs, Messrs. Schuller, the proprietors of this firm, wished to establish 1752 a factory in this country inside the tariff wall. Their agents came to Slough, in my constituency, and selected a site for the factory. Before definitely taking a lease for the site, they applied to the Ministry of Labour for permits for two German workers to come in for 12 months to instruct my constituents, but, greatly to their surprise, they were refused. The managing director of the Slough Trading Estate, thinking that these foreigners had not been able to explain their case accurately, went to the Board of Trade and was told that the Germans could not be admitted. He argued the case and said he could give letters from no fewer than seven English wholesale houses which desired this firm to be established here. In fact, one firm went so far as to say that whether or not the German firm was established here, they would continue to buy their retort glass from them, either in Germany or in Slough. The Board of Trade gave a statement in writing to my constituents, in which they said: The admission of alien labour to establish a new undertaking can only be justified on the ground that the product which will be made has special qualities of design or workmanship required by the market here. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies under what Act of Parliament the Board of Trade has assumed those powers. I have visited many factories in my constituency. A fortnight ago I saw foreign workers in quite half-a-dozen factories. It is a common boast on the Front Bench that 27 factories have been established in Slough since the tariffs. Had it not been for this decision, there would have been 28 now. I want to know where the consistency comes in. There are factories which make such commonplace things as nails and margarine in which foreign workers are teaching our people the processes. They are here for only six months under a permit and then they go back to their own countries. Their employers do not want to keep them here because they are expensive. Why in this particular case is the Board of Trade sticking in its toes and refusing to allow foreign workers to come here?
My reasons for raising this case are briefly these. I contend that by its decision the Board of Trade has condemned 30 of my constituents, who would have been fully employed, to walk the streets 1753 without work. Any Member is bound to raise such a question affecting his constituents at a time of unemployment like this. Unemployment in Slough is worse to-day than ever it has been. My second reason is this. I fail to see any consistency in the action of the Board of Trade. I fail to see why the Board should allow foreign teaching in one industry and refuses it in another. My third reason is a wider one. This practice of the Board of Trade calling in an expert and asking his advice as to whether a particular product that a foreign firm wishes to make can be made by other existing British firms in this country, and deciding on that advice to advise the Ministry of Labour to refuse these permits, is a thing which any hon. Member will see at once is liable to extraordinary difficulties and misconstruction. No doubt a decision like this is in the interest of the shareholders of existing British firms which purport to be making this kind of glass, but it is not in the interest of the consumer because it tends to establish a ring and prevents healthy competition.
I have been a Protectionist all my life. I was a Protectionist long before the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary became Protectionists, but I do not stand for this kind of Protection at ale I want a tariff wall round England. I do not want a all of Protection round existing industries to prevent healthy competition by foreign firms coming in here. What would have happened to the trade of this country if the Huguenots and Flemish weavers had been prevented from coming into this country? Is not that the way that trades have grown up in this country, and should we not encourage every foreigner to come here? English firms are still buying this German glass in spite of the tariff. That proves that this German firm makes the kind of glass which the existing British firms cannot make now.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I do not understand even now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made his explanation, why the Board of Trade is answering this question rather than the Ministry of Labour. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a serious matter, which has been raised by other Members before. 1754 Grave charges have been made against the reasons for not allowing certain people to come into this country. I make no reflection on the hon. Gentleman, but probably the Ministry of Labour would be in a better position to reply, as they have been so regularly questioned upon this matter. I know that the representatives of the Ministry of Labour actually visit these factories in order to investigate the conditions and to make quite sure about the grounds upon which any foreign worker is allowed to come in or even to stay in. It is pre-eminently a question for the Ministry of Labour. Although, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, the Board of Trade give certain advice in these matters, it is the fact that the Ministry of Labour maintains a direct and regular contact with conditions in the factories. I put that point because it seems to me this matter is becoming increasingly important in view of recent legislation, and it would be far better if we could have a representative of the Ministry of Labour with the hon. Member, or, indeed, replying.

§ Sir A. KNOX
I put this question purposely to the Board of Trade, because the agent of the foreign firm carried on all his negotiations with the Board of Trade and it was the Board of Trade who were the active people in refusing this permit.

§ Mr. LAWSON
I should question that very much, although I followed the Minister's answer with some interest, because it was my experience, when I was a Minister, that we regularly had to look into these important matters and decide whether to give permits or to send people out.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin)
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) kindly gave me notice yesterday that he was proposing to raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night. It arises out of a question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade and replied to by myself on Monday. In reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) I may say that if there had been a little longer interval between the answer and notice that the matter was being raised to-night, in all probability a representative of the Ministry of 1755 Labour would have been sitting by me. I have no complaint that the matter has been raised on the Adjournment, and I am more than happy to give the facts within the knowledge of the Department on what is obviously a matter of importance. I regret that the hon. and gallant Member should have thought fit to suggest that an answer given on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade was evasive. Obviously remarks of that kind do no good to the hon. and gallant Member or anybody else.

§ Mr. KIRKWOOD
On a point of Order. Surely a Member, if he thinks a Minister has given an evasive answer, has a right to tell him so. When did Ministers become immaculate?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I might point out that the Minister has a right to reply.

§ Dr. BURGIN
I am much obliged to you, Sir. The facts of the matter are that under the Aliens Order, 1920, Article 1, Sub-section (3, b), the responsibility for granting or refusing a permit in the case of an alien applying to take up a position in employment in this country lies entirely with the Ministry of Labour. Any advice that may be given by the Board of Trade is given purely in a consultative capacity, because the Board of Trade has very considerable information, in its Industries and Manufactures Section, dealing with industries in this country. It is quite outside the power of the Board of Trade to give, either in answer to a question or when a matter is raised on the Adjournment, the reasons which operated on the mind of the Minister of Labour in reaching a particular decision. It is a pure assumption, a gratuitous assumption, without any evidence whatever to support it, to suggest that the Minister in this particular case formed his opinion on information tendered by the Board of Trade.

§ Sir A. KNOX
Will the hon. Member deny that?

§ Dr. BURGIN
I say that it is entirely beyond my power to give the reasons which induced the Minister of Labour to come to an administrative decision. I have no information one way or the other which induced him to do so. Nor has the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am 1756 in possession of the official files. This is not a case of workers from a friendly country with a desire to instruct those who were out of work, being refused admission. The case is quite different. The case is that of an application made to the Ministry of Labour for permission to import certain German specialists, with a view to the manufacture in this country of a certain article already manufactured in sufficient quantity to meet the whole of the Home, Dominion and export needs, an application objected to most strongly by glass makers in this country, all of whom made their representations to the Board of Trade in identical manner to those supporting the application.
The evidence on both sides was most carefully considered, and it was, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, overwhelmingly in favour of showing that there was adequate supplies of this glass available to users, and that the only effect of setting up another factory to make the same would be, perhaps, to put 30 people into work at Slough, and 30 out at St. Helens. The Board of Trade was compelled to advise that, on industrial grounds, the information in their possession did not justify them giving a favorable recommendation in this case. The only matter that is submitted to the Board of Trade is: "What is your knowledge of the manufacture of this particular article within this country, and what have you to say to the suggestion that it would be advisable or inadvisable for another factory to be erected here to make the same article?"

§ Sir A. KNOX
If the facts are as the hon. Gentleman has stated, how can he account for the fact that, since this decision, in the month of November, a considerable quantity of this glass has been imported from this German firm into England?

§ Dr. BURGIN
I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that there is no reason why regular users of this glass should not continue to buy from the German factory in Germany.

§ Sir A. KNOX
Is it not better that Englishmen should make this glass?

§ Dr. BURGIN
The object of this Government is to encourage employment in this country by any means in their power. There is no objection raised to German or any other technical experts coming 1757 to this country to instruct, but it is an overriding consideration that more harm should not be done than good, and that when it is proposed to start an industry in this country if the effect of it would merely be to duplicate something existing in adequate quantities here, then no particular facilities would be granted to that industry.

§ Mr. DAVID MASON
Does not that confer a monopoly? Who gave the right to the Board of Trade to be the judge as to what should be considered proper supplies?

§ Dr. BURGIN
I have tried to point out that the Board of Trade are not judges of anything. The Board of Trade are asked in this matter for their opinion as to the nature and state of the industry, and whether or not an additional manufacturing unit within the United Kingdom would be of advantage to the nation. The Board of Trade without fear or favour examine these cases on the merits and give their decision. I have here the actual representations made and the names of the bodies which made them—the makers of glass, who asked the Board of Trade in this ease that on no account should a recommendation in favour of this application he made. It is useless to suggest, when recommendations are made in favour, as they were in this case, or against, as they were in this case, that the Minister was proceeding with a closed mind, or with any ulterior object. A judicial function is exercised, the pros and cons are balanced, and in this case, when the facts are looked into, it will be found that the Board of Trade tendered advice exactly in accordance with the evidence submitted to them by those best qualified to know—the makers of this special chemical glass, used for scientific chemical experiments, and, in particular, test tubes. There are at least 15 manufacturers of scientific glassware and tubing in this country—

§ Sir A. KNOX
Are not they interested parties?

§ Dr. BURGIN
They are, of course, interested parties, in the sense that they are co-partners engaged in the industry. They are knowledgeable people making and dealing in this article. The Board of Trade has its own experts in glass as in other matters, and when an application of this kind comes before them, they 1758 hear both sides and, having formed their view, tender advice to the Ministry of Labour, on which the Ministry of Labour are perfectly free to act or not as they think fit. There are many considerations besides the state of the industry. The Minister of Labour has the statutory authority to say whether or not those conditions are adequately fulfilled and whether or not permits should be granted.

§ Sir A. KNOX
Are not these 16 manufacturers of glass in this country directly interested in keeping out a foreign competitor?

§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
Is it to be a function of the Board of Trade in future to say that no industry shall be set up other than those already in existence?

§ Dr. BURGIN
The hon. Member must understand nothing of the kind. When an application is made to the Minister of Labour under the Aliens Order, 1920, to permit a particular alien to apply for a position in this country, that application has to be considered on its merits. All relevant factors have to be taken into consideration. The Ministry of Labour have no obligation to refer the matter to anyone outside the Department. In practice, however, when the matter relates to an industry or manufacture peculiarly within the province of another Government Department, namely, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour seeks consultative advice from the records in the possession of the Board of Trade. The matter is then referred to the Board of Trade for advice. Is this an industry which will be welcomed? What is the state of employment in the industry? What is the likely effect of another unit being started? Is that likely effect to be to discharge British labour? Surely there is no one in the House who would say that the Ministry of Labour should grant a permit to a foreigner to come here if the direct and natural consequence of his doing so is to discharge more British labour than it will engage.

§ Mr. CURRY
What assurance have we that the advice put forward by interested parties will be solely directed to the aspect of the displacement of labour and not to the aspect of the maintenance of profits?

§ Dr. BURGIN
I am sure the hon. Member is not crediting the President of 1759 the Board of Trade with much perspicacity. He is as alive as any Member of the House to the fact that you cannot only seek advice from those who are most interested in proving one particular side of a question. The whole matter has to be looked into. Internal evidence is taken; files are consulted; external evidence is taken; representations from the industry, makers and consumers alike, are considered. All those matters having been taken into account, advice is then tendered to the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour, after having made their own inquiries, of which the inquiry of the Board of Trade is only one, come to their conclusions, and in this case came to the conclusion that there was available in this country labour of the kind sought, and that there was therefore no justification for granting the permit asked for by the German manufacturers. When the whole of the facts are examined the matter is really unarguable, and what looked like a very plausible case when the hon. and gallant Gentleman opened it is found when one looks into the facts to be devoid of justification.

§ Sir JOSEPH NALL
The Parliamentary Secretary may or may not be right in the view that he advances, but he seems to be inconsistent. He says, on the one hand, it would be wrong to displace labour in one part of the country in order to employ it in another, with which most Members will agree. He goes on to ask, "If these people wish to import this material, why should they not?" He cannot have it both ways and, if a volume of this glass is being imported, that would 1760 appear to be a sufficient answer to the plea that he advances that the supply in this country is already adequate.
My hon. and gallant Friend in bringing forward this matter has ventilated a question which requires further consideration. The House is not concerned as to which Department is dealing with the matter or whether two Departments agreed upon the matter. All that we are concerned with is what action the Government are taking. We do not want to know the relations between the different Departments. That is beside the point and rather begging the question. My hon. and gallant Friend has put the proposition, that here is a demand for a certain article which is, in fact, being imported into this country as things are to-day. If the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary would say that that importation is in fact prejudicing the employment of the firms which already exist in this country one might be disposed to sympathize with him, but he does not say anything of the sort. He says, "Why not let the importer go on importing if he wants to do so." It is a complete negation of the present policy of the Government as far as it is understood in that part of the House to which I usually attach myself. The Government ought to make further inquiry into this matter in order to convince the House that the action which has been taken up to date is founded upon sufficient fact, and that the Government are not, unfortunately, lending themselves to what may be a very unpleasant ramp.