The first Amendment to Clause 3 is that standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery).—in page 4, line 15, to leave out the words "an additional" and to insert instead thereof the words "a different"—and I am unable to accept it as it is drafted. If, however, he agrees to it being put forward in a. more restricted form, I am prepared to accept it.
§ Mr. AMERY
I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out the words "an additional" and to insert instead thereof the words "a higher."
I regret very much that the wider Amendment is no longer possible, because I proposed in that way to add flexibility to the powers of the Advisory Committee. I hope very much that the Government will none the less give the Amendment very careful consideration before the Report stage. Meanwhile, the object of leaving out the word "additional" is that it will make the duty a single duty and not two duties. It may be said that that is a purely artificial distinction, and, if the additional duties are partly ad valorem, that will be the case. If, in addition to the original duty of 10 per cent., the Committee recommend an additional 23 per cent. that will ultimately be put on as a 33 per cent. duty.
The position is different when you come to specific duties. One of the main functions of the Committee will undoubtedly be to put on specific as well as ad valorem duties, and it ought to be in their power to recommend a specific duty right through. There are very important cases where the ideal duty is a combination of an ad valorem and a specific duty. In the carpet industry, I understand, the duty which is, by common agreement, desired, is one of 15 per cent. ad valorem, plus a flat duty by weight or yard. As the Bill stands, it is not possible to the Advisory Committee to frame a single specific duty for the whole of an article. It is true that Clauses 17 and 18 contain provisions under which the Treasury may impose a specific duty as the equivalent of the ad valorem duty, but that is under provisions carefully 2012 adjusted to make it simply another way of reckoning the ad valorem. That is different from the principle on which a specific duty is imposed regardless of its ad valorem value.
I think I could make the point clearer if I took a very simple instance. All those concerned with agriculture will generally be agreed that most of the agricultural duties should be simply specific duties. The best duty on butter is no doubt a simple duty of so much per pound on foreign butter. Suppose that a duty, in the opinion of the Committee, representing a penny halfpenny per lb. would be a reasonable and fair duty on foreign butter, that is, 10 per cent. on butter of the value of 15 pence a pound. On all butter of a higher value than 15 pence a pound, the duty would be below 10 per cent., and therefore, if the Bill goes through as it is at present, outside the power of the Committee to recommend. When butter is less than 15 pence a pound, the duty of 1 ½d. per lb. would be over 10 per cent. and the Committee would have to recommend a fluctuating additional duty. That seems a very complicated and difficult process, and we ought not, now that we are embarking upon this great experiment to change our tariff system, to make it administratively more difficult for the trader or the Departments to understand, or to be an obstacle in the way of the Committee imposing the kind of duty that is most effective for its purpose, and the most easily carried out.
There is the question of drawbacks and other matters. The Committee should not be confined to giving drawbacks or to making recommendations with regard to additional duties, but should take into their purview the whole of the new duties, higher, which is all that they can recommend if this Amendment is carried, but lower if the Government will look into this matter and will accept my original Amendment to enable the Committee to vary the duty. I am not an ardent advocate of a wide system of drawbacks, and I am glad that that has not been granted as a universal right. I think it would be a mistake if the drawback was always given to the full extent of the duty. In many cases there will be a drawback which is the equivalent of the duty, and that would practically be a subsidy to the foreign import. In those 2013 cases where the foreign importer pays a part, the manufacturer will have paid not the home price plus the duty, but the home price plus some proportion of the duty, and then get the full drawback.
Therefore, I am not arguing for too many drawbacks or the full drawback, but there are cases, there are sure to be, where a reasonable drawback is very nearly the full duty. What the Committee is entitled to do is to recommend the full drawback on the additional duty and no drawback on the 10 per cent. There, again, it would be far wiser to treat the result of the Committee's recommendation as a single consolidated duty, and, with regard to the duty, to give the Committee the full right to make recommendations as to the extent of the drawback, whether wide or narrow. I press this Amendment most earnestly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the Rules of the House I am only entitled to press it in its present narrower form, but I would earnestly beg ray right hon. Friend to consider it in its wider form as an Amendment which in no way affects the general principles of his Measure, and which, from the point of view of those who differ from the Measure, would certainly not make it more Protectionist or less Protectionist. Everybody in the House is anxious that, if the Measure goes through, it should work as smoothly as possible, be as easily administered as possible, and be as intelligible as possible to manufacturers, importers, and others who will live under it.
Our object, and the object of appointing the Committee, is that we may be provided with a flexible, coherent tariff scheme, worked out by a fair-minded body of people, into which could be incorporated the other duties—the Safeguarding and McKenna duties—which at present exist. I suggest that we should aim at a structure which is a unity in itself, and not one made up of a number of superimposed and disconnected parts, each built up on somewhat different provisions. As the Bill stands at present, the Clauses dealing with the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, and the equating of it by weight or in other specific forms, are established on principles which are in one way entirely different from what the facts of the case might lead the committee to recommend. The whole case that I would make is for unity, consolidation and flexibility. 2014 While I can hardly expect the Chancellor to come to a definite decision at once on this matter, I would most seriously plead with him not to reject the essence of this proposal. The verbiage is immaterial, but I would ask him not to reject the proposal outright, but to give it very careful consideration between now and the Report stage.
I find myself in some difficulty in regard to this Amendment, because the argument of my right hon. Friend, as I understood it, was addressed to the Amendment which is out of order, while, on the other hand, the Amendment that we actually have to consider is the one which is in order. The Amendment which is in order is to substitute the word "higher" for the word "additional" in line 15 of page 4. The effect of that, as far as I can make out, would be absolutely nil. I presume that my right hon. Friend does not intend to press this Amendment, but that he only desires to raise the subject—
§ Mr. AMERY
May I interrupt my right hon. Friend for a moment? I am afraid I did not succeed in making myself altogether clear, but the effect of a higher duty is not dm same as that of an additional duty, because, if there is an additional duty, there are two duties, which, according to the Clauses of this Bill, are dealt with on different principles. To make the duty a higher duty would make the whole thing one duty, and would enable the Committee to consider it as a single duty, both as regards making it specific and as regards deciding on what principles it should be divided as between a specific and an ad valorem duty, and also as regards drawbacks. The Amendment that is in order covers at any rate three-quarters of my purpose, and I think it does materially effect the whole working of the Bill. That part of it which is out of order completes the scheme, but must be left to the private consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It would be quite possible, if the Committee consider that a higher duty than the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. is desirable, for them to recommend that an additional duty should be put on. That would be in consonance with my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and, as I have indicated, the effect would be the same as would be obtained by putting on a higher duty. 2015 I do not wish to bandy words with my right hon. Friend about this particular Amendment, because I recognise that it is a device for getting round the difficulty in which he finds himself owing to his Amendment as it stands on the Paper having been ruled out of order. If I correctly understand the purpose of my right hon. Friend, he wants to combine the ad valorem duty which we have suggested and the additional duty into a single duty, or, at any rate, he wants to give power to combine the two. What is the purpose of that? My right hon. Friend says that the Committee might think that a specific duty was better than an ad valorem duty, and that it would be very complicated if they had to begin with an ad valorem duty and put a specific duty on the top of that. But they are not necessarily compelled to do that. Under the Bill as it stands, they can superimpose upon the ad valorem duty a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty, and the ad valorem duty can then be converted, under Clause 17, into a specific duty, so that there would be two specific duties which would in fact be one duty.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Can the duty be so converted on grounds of economic desirability, or merely on grounds of administrative convenience?
§ 1.0 p.m.
Obviously, it would be done for the sake of administrative convenience. Administratively it would be more convenient to have a single specific duty than mixed duties which were partly specific and partly ad valorem. I only mention that as a possibility. That, however, would not, as I understand it, entirely meet my right hon. Friend's view, because he will say, "But I would like to have the power of imposing a specific duty which would be lower than the equivalent of the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent." If that is what is in his mind, then I must say that I am not very favourably impressed by that suggestion, not because it does not give sufficiently high Protection, but because it only considers Protection and does not consider revenue, and, as I have stated before, one of the objects of the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty is to fortify the revenue. If the 2016 revenue is to be whittled away by taking out the 10 per cent. duty and putting in specific duties at a lower rate than 10 per cent., then, really, whatever may be the advantage from the purely Protectionist point of view, it is a disadvantage from the revenue point of view. Therefore, while I am quite prepared to consider any further representations that my right hon. Friend may make to me, it seems to me on the whole that, first of all, a great part of his object can already be effected under the Bill, and, secondly, in so far as his object goes beyond that, it does not commend itself favourably to me, because it whittles away my revenue.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
No Amendment that can be moved while the Bill is in Committee will be more important in principle than this. Whatever the decision may be now, we shall never get a scientific tariff system going unless some such provision is introduced. If you, Sir, ever study a foreign tariff you will sometimes find two or three pages devoted to graduations of duty on a single group of commodities. That elaboration is almost entirely due to the fact that in many foreign countries they have either entirely specific duties or entirely ad valorem duties. When you come to combine ad valorem with specific duties, you achieve all the economic effects that you wish with an enormous degree of simplicity. From the point of view of revenue, a specific duty bus a great advantage, because you can always measure the length of a thing or weigh it, but it is not always easy to determine its value. But there are many cases where a pure specific duty will not do and an ad valorem duty will not do, but where you can combine the two you limit the difficulty that may arise because of the problem of settling values.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the specific case of the carpet industry, where they have devoted immense time and thought to the solution of the problem of a scientific tariff. They have come to the conclusion that 15 per cent. ad valorem plus 1s. a lb. will give them a degree of protection without risk to the consumer. It is important that one should realise that, because I am still waiting for a consumer to bring forward any evidence of any duties which have 2017 yet raised prices. Under the Bill as it stands, that scale of duty, which is not an excessive scale, will be quite impossible, as I read it. There are many other industries that are studying the problem and the number of cases where a combination of specific and ad valorem in the formulation of a scientific tariff is so great that I hope the Chancellor will be prepared to give serious consideration to the matter before Report with a view to the formulation of a scheme which will give the Committee real powers of flexibility and simplicity, and there is no reason why the revenue should suffer. I was not contemplating that this should be used to a material extent for imposing duties of less than 10 per cent., but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not regard the question of revenue merely from the point of view of the direct yield of the duties. The real revenue-raising powers of the Bill will arise out of the increased prosperity of our industries and the increased yield of other forms of taxation, which will give him four or five times as much as he will get from direct revenue under the Bill.
§ Mr. AMERY
It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer still has not entirely grasped the scope of the Amendment. Clauses 17 and 18, it is true, enable an ad valorem duty to be equated by weight or measure, but that is quite a different thing from the Committee recommending a specific duty regardless of what its ad valorem equivalent may he —higher or lower. Let me go back to the instance of butter. If the duty recommended were 1 ½d. a lb. on butter of ls. a lb., that would involve a very different calculation from a duty of 10 per cent. by weight, and the result would be different in the case of butter of every kind of price. Also my right hon. Friend did not touch at all upon the other point that I made, of the convenience of a drawback being considered relative to the whole duty. On the point of revenue, I hope throughout these discussions he will keep in mind that the revenue resulting from production here is infinitely more important than the toll taken on goods coming into the country. Further, the last thing I want to see the Committee do is generally to whittle down the 10 per cent.
I did not permit the right hon. Gentleman to move his first Amendment, because that would have enabled the Committee to whittle down the 10 per cent., and that is contrary to a decision already taken by this Committee. He must not go into that point.
§ Sir P. HARRIS
May I remind you, Sir, that we are working under a Guillotine, and we shall have very little time to discuss other matters.
§ Mr. AMERY
I only wish to reply to one point that the Chancellor has put on the point of revenue. If an article is put on the free list, it brings no revenue whatever and, at any rate, if a duty were lower than 10 per cent., even if it were only an incidental consequence of a flat specific rate of 8 or 9 per cent., it would bring him in his revenue. Therefore, the result of a greater freedom might bring him more revenue than an absence of freedom, which would compel articles to be put on the free list which would otherwise pay some duty. I hope this matter, which really goes to the root, not of the principle of the Bill, but of the smooth working of the Bill, will be carefully considered between this and Report.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Might I appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to settle their domestic differences outside the Committee. There is a strict Guillotine. We have been debating a question which has arisen internally within the party opposite. It does not give the rest of the Committee a fair chance of discussion.
The next Amendment, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer)—in line 17, to leave out from the word "description," to the word "which" in line 18, is out of order as being beyond the scope of the Financial Resolution. The same remark applies to the Amendment in the name of the tight hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery)—in line 18, to leave out from the word "duty," to the word "the", in line 23.
§ Mr. PARKINSON
I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, to leave out the word "either".
Hon. Members opposite have been appealing for greater flexibility to be given to the Committee. We do not 2019 believe that greater flexibility is necessary at all. We believe that a definition ought to be given of luxury articles and it ought to be definitely declared what are articles of luxury and what are not. I do not think anyone on this side will quarrel as to the extent of the additional duties, because we do not believe it is so necessary to deal with articles of luxury as with articles of common concern. We feel that the right hon. Gentleman ought at least to accept the Amendment and let the Clause read, "which are in their opinion articles of luxury." instead of accepting the word "either," which stands in between. If there is to be an additional duty, it ought to be restricted to articles of luxury and ought not to cover articles produced or likely to be produced in the United Kingdom.
§ Major ELLIOT
I am afraid it will not be possible to accept the Amendment, and the hon. Member will at once see why. The definition, which he says would be such an easy thing, would be in practice almost impossible. I see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing a watch chain. I do not wear a watch chain. A watch chain is an article of luxury. You can pull your watch out of your pocket by the finger and thumb perfectly well. [Interruption.] The difficulty is that the whole purpose of the Bill would be traversed by the suggestion in the Amendment, that is to say, we should not protect articles which can be made in the United Kingdom, whether they were articles of luxury or not. In point of administration, it would be almost impossible to define—what is suggested would be so easily done—the difference between an article of luxury and an article of necessity. Articles which were luxuries to our forefathers are necessities to us. To our forefathers, boots were articles of luxury; to us they are a necessity. You might run through the whole range of articles, with lawyers quarrelling at every stage as to what is a luxury and what is a necessity. On the ground that it would be administratively impossible, and on the ground that it would traverse the main purpose of the Bill, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I regret the reply of the Financial Secretary and the lack of sympathy it contained. While we are not 2020 anxious to waste the time of the Committee upon any Amendment, I think that this Amendment is absolutely vital. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have forgotten, in making his reply, that in the terms of the Bill power will be conferred upon the Advisory Committee to add duties upon the existing duty, which is, of course, 10 per cent. That power extends to almost every kind of human food. We ought to hesitate before allowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to exceed the function laid down by the President of the Board of Trade, when, a few months ago, he suggested that he would not be adverse to luxury articles being taxed for the purpose of helping to balance trade and so forth. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "Look at the obligations we are imposing upon this Committee to define what is and what is not a luxury." The duties imposed upon the Committee are very wide and comprehensive. As stated in the Bill it is upon their opinion that everything depends. It would not be at all difficult to tell whether an article is in the nature of a luxury or not when dealing with duties additional to the duty of 10 per cent., which applies to food as well as to other articles.
I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one or two possibilities. Poultry, eggs, cheese, butter and all kinds of tinned foods largely consumed by the poorer section of the working-class are embodied in the Bill already. A 10 per cent. duty will be fixed, unless there is some restriction placed in the Bill. How do we know but that the Committee will simply run up taxes on certain articles as a result of which the people will not be able to obtain those articles? Tinned salmon is invariably a Sunday afternoon luxury for tens of thousands of people, and it may be impossible for them to enjoy that luxury in future. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can get it from the Empire."] Of course, we shall get it from the Empire, but with the additional duties put upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no"!] If hon. or right hon. Gentleman can tell me of a single shop in any part of the British Isles where in respect to an article on sale there is one price for the foreign article and one price for the Dominion article, I shall be very pleased to attend those premises—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says "New Zealand butter". I have never in all my travels round either Regent Street or any other street seen one price for a comparable article because it came from any part of the Dominions and one price for the foreign article.
§ Major ELLIOT
Surely, quite apart from Regent Street, the hon. Member must have seen shops with New Zealand butter at one price and best Danish butter at another price.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
That matters not. These absolute necessities ought not to be subject to further duties than the ten per cent. duties already imposed. I wish to draw the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the duty imposed upon the Committee in the first sub-section of the Clause to determine whether an article of a certain kind is being produced or is likely to be produced within a reasonable time in the United Kingdom. If the articles may be produced within a reasonable time, they have to have substantial relation to the known consumption of the article in the United Kingdom.
I must point out to the hon. Member that there is another Amendment upon the Paper dealing with the question of a reasonable time, and that it would be better to discuss that question when the particular Amendment is reached.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I understand that three Amendments are being taken together for the convenience of the Committee.
If that is the case, of course, I could permit a discussion upon the question of a reasonable time. I have received no information at all, and I called the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson). If the Committee desire to discuss the three Amendments together, I shall have no objection to their doing so.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The impression on these benches is that the three Amendments—the one to leave out the word "either," the second one to leave out from the word "luxury," in line 19, to the word "the," in line 23, and the third 2022 to leave out the words to which I have just referred—should be taken together because they involve the same principle. We thought that a general discussion and probably one Division would settle the whole matter.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
We are convinced that even a 10 per cent. duty upon foodstuffs is going to be a hardship upon millions of people in this country. We are unwilling to grant power to any committee whether they be Solomons or archangels, to superimpose higher duties upon these absolute necessities. We suggest that these various words should be deleted so that all the additional duties can be imposed upon what are understood, in the opinion of the committee, to be luxuries. We ought at least to be able to look forward to every Liberal Member to support us in the Lobby on this Amendment.
§ Sir P. HARRIS
I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade has left the Committee, but I see that it is twenty-five minutes past one o'clock, and, no doubt, he is busily engaged upon some other matter. I particularly desired him to be here, because I have a very vivid recollection of a great speech which he made and in which he created a very profound impression at the end of the last Parliament. He pointed out how during the War, when the economic conditions were all disturbed, it was necessary to confine our imports to necessaries and to exclude luxuries. He enumerated a large number of articles. It was clear to me from his speeches that he is supporting this Bill, not because he has been diverted from Free Trade or changed his views, but because of the abnormal economic conditions caused by the drain of gold and the adverse balance of trade. It was in order to restore that balance that he proposed to keep out luxuries. 2023 I agree with the Financial Secretary that it is difficult to define, but the word "luxury" appears in the Bill. If it has no sense in it, why put it in? I think it was the Minister of Agriculture who said that he knew a luxury when he saw it. We are setting up this Committee of five supermen, men of great intelligence and capacity, the best men we can find. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to search the land to find men of commercial knowledge, ability, integrity and impartiality, who will have the palate to judge what is a luxury and what is a necessary of life. A good deal of my opposition to the Bill would be removed if the powers of the Committee were limited to devising taxes to keep out luxuries.
I am satisfied that there is an economic blizzard blowing over the world—I have never questioned it but have always admitted it—which has reached this country, America, Germany and other countries, and has upset the whole economic organisation. Therefore, there may be a case for exceptional measures to meet that economic blizzard, in order to put us into a position to keep out luxuries, while importing the necessaries of life and raw materials for industry. It is one thing to keep out luxuries and another thing to give this Committee a roving commission to deal with any articles imported into this country, such as raw materials and food, which have come to be regarded by our 40,000,000 of population as necessaries. It would be a great thing if the Committee had some guiding line on which to go.
I can understand the position of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). His position is logical, and I have always respected it. He is seeking to use the present occasion to introduce a real system of scientific tariffs and to change the whole fiscal system. But I do not understand the introduction of a system which will give us the worst of all possible worlds, which will not give us a scientific tariff but a very clumsy tariff, which will do an immense amount of harm.
I would prefer, if we are to have a tariff, that the will of the President of the Board of Trade should prevail. I am not concerned with the Home Secretary. He is not a party to the transaction. He 2024 has cleared out of it. He has no lot or share in the tariff. He is a free man. The President of the Board of Trade is a party to the tariff. If we are to have a tariff, I want his kind of tariff, which would exclude luxuries, and luxuries only. I see on the Front Bench a Junior Lord of the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell). He is a devout follower of the President of the Board of Trade, or is he a devout follower of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I am not sure who is his particular leader, but I have a shrewd suspicion, if I know anything of the views that he expressed in the last Parliament, that he is with me at heart in wishing to limit the exclusion to luxuries. It may be said that experiments of this character have gone on without any great injury to people in other countries, but do not let us forget that we have a more crowded population in our industrial areas than in any great country of Europe, if not of the world, with the single exception of a small country like Belgium. Our people cannot live unless they draw their supplies from every corner of the world. Abundance and cheapness are essential. 1.30 p.m. Even if all the good things that are promised from these tariffs take place, even if the unemployment problem is solved, if we have more regular hours and higher wages, it must inevitably be the case, as in every great industrial country, that a vast number of working people will be living on the verge of starvation. I have a vivid recollection of the report of Mr. Rowntree on various industrial centres, in which he analysed the ordinary budget of working-class people. It will be a very serious thing and will make an immense difference to the comfort and happiness of tens of thousands of families if, in order to encourage production in this country and to consolidate the Empire, a committee is going to be set up to levy taxes on a vast range and multitude of articles of food, raw materials and many necessaries of life. Therefore, I consider that this is a vital Amendment and I hope that the Mover will press it to a Division. If the Clause were limited to luxuries, much of my opposition would be removed.
§ Mr. C. BROWN
I had listened to the hon. Baronet with great interest. He is putting up a brave and heroic fight in the interests of Free Trade, but I think 2025 he presents a very pathetic spectacle. He has told us of the possible consequences of this particular word not being deleted from the Clause, and he has expressed his sympathy with regard to the possible sufferings of great masses of people if the Bill becomes operative in a certain form. While listening to speeches of that description I cannot forget the part that he and those associated with him has played in creating the situation in which we find ourselves in this House. More and more as the days go by and we continue the discussion of the Bill, I think the hon. Baronet and his friends will be disillusioned as regards the consequences of the policy which they supported and which has brought about the existing situation. He referred to a speech which the President of the Board of Trade made towards the end of the last Parliament. I listened to that speech with very great interest. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would tax all luxury imports, and told us that he did not think he would have much difficulty in defining luxury imports. That is contrary to the view expressed by the Financial Secretary to-day. The Financial Secretary should consult his right hon. Friend as to what are or are not luxuries. They might have a discussion, for instance, whether a watch-chain is a luxury.
When the President of the Board of Trade made that speech he stood at the top of a slippery slope, and he has been sliding down ever since. The hon. Baronet did well to call our attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's name is on the back of this Bill. Obviously, he has reached a stage when he is prepared to be out and out for a full policy of protection. Hon. Members on the Liberal benches will have to turn their minds to a consideration of what will be the consequences of the Bill, especially the Clause that we are now discussing. We have been told that the Government have a plan for dealing with the existing situation; and the plan is slowly unfolding itself. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has
§ stressed the fact that if certain steps are taken the miseries of the common people will be increased. There is another thing that will happen when the Bill is put into operation—the riches of the wealthy will be augmented.
§ Mr. BROWN
I am calling attention to the Amendment, and I am pointing out that if a certain course is pursued in regard to articles which are to be taxed, that as a consequence the riches of the wealthy will be augmented and the miseries of the poor increased. The net result will be to widen and deepen the yawning gulf which already exists between the masses of the people and the wealthy of this country. Liberal members ought to be very careful as to the course they pursue in the various stages of this Bill.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
Whatever the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) may think as to the results of this Bill I am quite certain that the results of a continuance of the Labour Government would have been far worse. I desire to direct my attention to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) to insert the words—with efficiency and economy, and at prices which are reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description and.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I thought we were discussing the Amendments which follow the one now before the Committee?
§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, the next two Amendments, but not the one to which the hon. Member has referred.
Question put, "That the word 'either' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 45.
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Pearson, William G.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Hammersiey, Samuel S.||Peat, Charles U.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Hanley, Dennis A.||Penny, Sir George|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perkins, Waiter R. D.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Hartland, George A.||Pets, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Borodale, Viscount||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hillman, Dr. George B.||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)||Ramsden, E.|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Howard, Tom Forrest||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Burghley, Lord||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Robinson, John Roland|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hurd, Percy A.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Russeil, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Kimball, Lawrence||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Scone, Lord|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Fin. N. (Edgbaston)||Knox, sir Alfred||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Chotzner, Alfred James||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Christie, James Archibald||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Lewis, Oswald||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Colfax, Major William Philip||Liddall, Walter S.||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Colville, Major David John||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Cook. Thomas A.||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunfiffe-||Soper, Richard|
|Cooke, James D.||Liewellin, Major John J.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Stones, James|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||McCorguodale, M. S.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nalrn)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (L of W.)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||McKle, John Hamilton||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Davies, Maj. G O. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)|
|Denville, Alfred||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Templeton, William P.|
|Dickle, John P.||Maitland, Adam||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Donner, P. W.||Makins, Brigadler-General Ernest||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Doran, Edward||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Drewe. Cedric||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Todd. Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Meller, Richard James||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Millar, Sir James Duncan||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Mills, Major J. D (New Forest)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mitchell, Harold P.(Be'tf'd & Chlsw'k)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdaie||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Erskine Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Morelng, Adrian C.||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Morrison, William Shephard||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moss, Captaln H. J.||Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Withers. Sir John James|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Grimston, R. V.||North. Captain Edward T.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Oman. Sir Charles William C.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G.A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hales, Harold K.||Palmer, Francis Noel||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Dagger, George||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Batey, Joseph||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)|
|Bernays, Robert||Edwards, Charles||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Briant, Frank||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Hicks, Ernest George|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Hirst, George Henry|
|Cove, William G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Holdswerth, Herbert|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Grundy, Thomas W.||Janner, Barnett|
|Jenkins, Sir William||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Thorne, William James|
|Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Kirkwood, David||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Maxton, James||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Lawson, John James||Nathan, Major H. L.||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Lunn, William||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Price, Gabriel||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||Rea, Walter Russell||Mr. Groves and Mr. John.|
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after the word "kingdom," to insert the words:with efficiency and economy, and at prices which are reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description and.If the Committee will be good enough to follow me for a few minutes I feel sure I shall show that this is a very important Amendment. The Bill purports to accomplish certain things. It purports to redress the balance of trade, or the balance of payment as it is called now. On that score I think we ought to congratulate the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) inasmuch as he has been able to change completely the vocabulary of the Government on the Bill. I remember the hon. Member being almost howled down for saying that we were concerned here with the balance of payments and not with the balance of trade. The Bill also purports to stop further depreciation of the £ abroad, to prevent unfair competition from foreign goods, and, above all, to stimulate home production. My contention is that none of the manufacturers who are to be protected by the provisions of this Clause should be protected to such an extent as to create a monopoly, so that goods can be produced that are unfit for consumption, and above all that manufacturers shall not be entitled, behind the duty, to charge what they like for their products.
It can be seen, therefore, that this is a very important Amendment. Without going into the large argument of free trade and tariffs, which would not be allowed on this Amendment, it is true to say that the history of duties of this kind in every country in the world has shown that in spite of the desire of Governments to put up tariff walls to help home manufacture, the result has been in many cases to make the manufacturer into a monopolist, and on occasion to bring about a great deal of inefficiency and laziness. Take the example given last night. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), who quarrels with me more often than any other hon. Member, 2030 is not in his place. He told us that a gentleman from Czechoslovakia has bought some land in the South of England for the purpose of starting a boot factory. If a Czechoslovakian manufacturer comes to this country to compete with our own boot and shoe manufacturers on the spot it is an indication that there is something wrong with our own boot and shoe manufacturers. I have said this in public, and although I am a Socialist I stand by it—
§ Captain GUNSTON
Are we to understand then that most Socialists are not willing to stand by their statements?
§ Mr. DAVIES
I wish Members of the Government would stand by what they said at the General Election. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) sits on this side of the House, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) sit opposite. Somehow they never act together except when they want to conspire amongst themselves. Then they go into the smoke room and make it up somehow. But in this House they quarrel about many fine points. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was certainly splitting hairs this afternoon over this point. We want the Advisory Committee to have regard to this very important consideration. I always hold that the putting up of a tariff wall does tend to monopolies and inefficiency.
What has this Advisory Committee to do? It has to take into consideration many things—the amount of the imports, whether the amount of the imports affects adversely our own industries; and the Committee can raise the duty just in proportion as the duty will prevent imports and give an incentive to our own products. But we want to go further than that. We say that the Advisory Committee ought definitely to be compelled to take into consideration whether the industry that is protected is carried on efficiently or not, whether it is conducted with economy, and whether the prices charged for the products are 2031 reasonable. The hon. Member for South Croydon made an astonishing statement recently. He said that he had never yet known of a tariff that had increased prices. I went to a shop in Manchester a week last Saturday to buy a pound of grapes for a sick person. I was told that the price was 3s. The shopkeeper did not know who I was, and he said, "Were it not for the new duties, instead of 3s. they would be 1s. 8d. a lb." I mention that as an indication to the Government of what is going to happen.
I am astonished to see three so called Free Traders on the Treasury Bench backing up this ridiculous Bill, but, of course, the sweets of office do count on occasion. Let me pass to another point in connection with this Amendment. In the consideration of this Bill, the consumer does not seem to count at all. The manufacturer, the importer, the exporter are all considered, but not the consumer. When a raging tearing campaign for this Measure was being conducted throughout the country, however, there was hardly a word about the manufacturer, the financier, the banker or the exporter. The speeches of Conservative candidates at the last Election, when they were trying to get the votes of the people, were all in this strain: "Vote for us and we will impose tariffs because we want you to have more employment, better wages and labour conditions." The case for these tariff proposals was concentrated on those points—good wages, increased employment and improved working conditions. But where are we now? I look through the list of Amendments from Tories and Liberals and I find that there is hardly a, single Amendment upon wages, not a single Amendment upon efficiency and economy in production, nothing at all of that kind. This Bill is all a capitalist dodge. How could it be otherwise when we see opposite hon. and right hon. Gentlemen representing finance and banking and other interests, but knowing very little of the lives of the working classes?
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
If the hon. Member looks at page 121 of the Order Paper, he will find an Amendment proposing to insertThe Committee, in recommending an additional duty of customs in respect of goods to which this sub-section applies shall satisfy itself— 2032I think that that refutes the statement which he has just made.
- (a) that the standard rate of wages is paid and the recognised hours of work observed;
- (b) that the industry is efficiently organised both on a national scale and in individual factories;
- (c) that adequate facilities exist for joint consultation by employers and employed in the conduct of the industry through joint industrial councils, works councils, and similar machinery."
§ Mr. DAVIES
The hon. Member's voice is a still small voice in this Committee. If he has done so, the Government have never said a word about wages. If Members of the Government were true to what they said at the General Election, one of the first things they would include in this Bill would be a provision that tariffs would be imposed only where employers were efficient, prices were reasonable and the conditions of employment were right and fair. I do not wish to insult the hon. Member by saying that his voice is a small, still voice, but—
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTH
I should be obliged if the hon. Member will remember that that still, small voice was received with great approbation.
§ Mr. DAVIES
Yes, but that was in Heaven. I believe that Heaven will listen to the hon. Gentleman's prayers, but it will hardly take note of this Government. I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will agree with me that we ought to press this Amendment. I agree that supporters of these tariffs believe that they are intended to, that they will help the products of our own country, and will increase production; that they will result in new factories springing up and in old factories being reopened by preventing goods that we can produce ourselves from being imported. But I feel positive that there is another consideration which must be borne in mind in dealing with these matters. If these tariffs are going to make the manufacturer think that he is safe from foreign competition, he may pay lower wages and alter the conditions of labour to the detriment of the workpeople. It is because I wish to safeguard against all those possibilities that I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment.
§ 2.0 p.m.
Mr. HOLDSWO RTH
Although I am a supporter of this Amendment, I do not think that we can do any good in this Committee by making wild and sweeping charges of inefficiency against the industry of this country. What I want to do is to make these proposals workable and equitable. 1, too, have been struck during these Debates by the lack of interest which seems to be taken in the consumers of the articles which it is proposed to tax, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who will, I presume, deal with this Amendment, whether the proposed words cannot be accepted. We only ask that the prices should be reasonable. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) said he would like to know of any articles which had been increased in price by the imposition of a duty. If he comes to Bradford I can show him that in the cases of scores of articles, prices have been increased since duties have been imposed. I would also like to ask what is meant by the words "reasonable time" in the Bill. The Dyestuffs Act, for instance, has been in operation for 10 or 12 years and I think it is just as easy to decide what are reasonable prices—because all the figures of the prices of imported articles are available—as it is to decide what is a reasonable time. I ask the Government to accept a proposal which seeks, legitimately, to defend the interest of the consumer.
§ Major ELLIOT
It would not be possible to accept this Amendment. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Members who, respectively, moved and supported the Amendment and therefore I shall briefly reply to the points which they have made. I wonder, have they taken into consideration Clause 19, under which it is possible for the Government to modify or take off a duty where it is considered desirable to do so, and whether they have taken into account the terms of reference to the Advisory Committee which appear in Sub-section (2) Clause 3. The Committee is to have regard to the advisability, in the national interest, of restricting imports into the United Kingdom, and to the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom. I ask hon. Members to consider whether the Advisory Committee under these conditions would recommend 2034 a duty if it was found that the industries concerned were not going to be carried on with efficiency and economy, and the goods were not to be sold at prices which were reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description. I think that the Bill already contains the safeguards for which the hon. Members are contending and that it would be unreasonable to go to the greater lengths which they ask us to go to in this Amendment, if for no other reason, because they have made no provision at all for the case of dumping. Imported goods may be coming into this country at prices far below what it would be reasonable for us to wish to produce them at in this country.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
That is why the words "reasonable as compared with" are used and not "the same as or lower than."
§ Major ELLIOT
If the words "reasonable as compared with" simply mean different prices, I really think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has knocked the bottom out of the case for the Amendment. I do not think we are getting further in the desire, which we all have, to protect the consumer by the adding of these words, when we consider, as I say, Sub-section (2) of this Clause and Clause 19 of the Bill. The very fact that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has said that "reasonable" is not "identical with," and therefore would leave a latitude to the Committee, which he desires it to have, so great that it might consider a difference of hundreds per cent. in favour of home production as a reasonable figure, shows, I think, that no additional protection would be given to the consumer by the Amendment. I shall, therefore, ask my hon. Friends if they could not see their way not to press the Amendment.
§ Mr. TINKER
The answer given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is very unsatisfactory to us, and I think he has hardly met our point. We refer in the Amendment to efficiency and economy. It is left to the Committee dealing with the question, and if they find that there is efficiency and economy, there can be no objection, from our point of view. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that goods oversea 2035 might be produced under bad conditions and at low rates of wages, but if that is so, and our people are producing their goods with efficiency and economy, even though the prices may be greater than those of the goods from oversea, we would have no objection. We do not want to allow the vendors of the goods to have almost unrestricted freedom to do as they like. We want some protection for the consumers, and if power were given to the authorities to say at any time that they felt that these conditions were not being carried out, we should be satisfied. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that this safeguard was to be found in another part of the Bill, but that is not clear to us. If it were found to be satisfactory later on, well and good, but for the moment we are not satisfied.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not at all appreciated what this Amendment is aiming at. This is a Clause which gives the Committee instructions as to the matters which they may take into consideration, such as if, in their opinion, they are articles of luxury or that can be produced within the United Kingdom. What we are anxious to do is to add what has nearly always been inserted before in Acts of this type, that is, that the Committee, in coming to its decision, might have the power of directing attention first to the efficiency and economy of the manufacture. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman remembers quite well, of course, the words which are to be found in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, and the Railways Act, 1921. When it is a question of regulating railway rates, it has to be efficient and economic management, under Section 58 and similar provisions. They have always been inserted, the House most jealously regarding the interests of the consumer, the payer of freights, or whoever it may he, where you are going to give a protection, and thereby a liability to raise prices against the consumer, and the House has acknowledged that the consumer is entitled, in any permanent system of this sort, to a consideration of whether the person who is getting protection is carrying out his business efficiently and economically. 2036 As regards the second part of the Amendment:and at prices which are reasonable as compared with the prices of imported goods of the same class or description,again it is an indication that that is one of the matters to which the Committee are to pay attention. They are not bound rigidly either to see that not more than or the same is charged, but their attention is directed to that in this Amendment as being one of the matters which they must have in mind before they make a recommendation; and I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that this is a perfectly reasonable protection to ask for the consumer in a Bill which is admittedly to be a permanent Measure.
§ Major ELLIOT
While I agree that it would be a reasonable protection to ask, I would ask the hon. and learned Member to remember that in the case of the Railway Rates Tribunal it can raise rates without any further regard for this House. All these things, however, are subject to review by this House, and in a wide and general scheme such as we are bringing forward, the ultimate authority is with this House. These are general considerations which will finally have to be considered by Parliament, and by the Government, and cannot be considered simply upon the authority of a Committee.
§ Sir S. CRIPPS
How can the House of Commons consider the efficiency and economy of a number of businesses?
§ Major ELLIOT
I have heard the House of Commons do little else for 10 years. I have heard the coal industry, the railway industry, the ship-building industry, the iron and steel industry, and the agricultural industry discussed. The efficiency and economy of agriculture is one of the hardiest annuals in this House, and I do not really think that the House of Commons is ever deterred from discussing the efficiency and economy of industry. It has a great deal of material in the personal experience of hundreds of persons actively engaged in the production and consumption of all the articles concerned, and I think that in the experience and skill of the House, and more particularly in Sub-section (2) 2037 of this Clause, we have sufficient protection for the consumer, and that the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made is adequately met.
§ Mr. ATTLEE
I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has met the point in the very slightest degree. Everybody who has had any experience of this House knows the way in which Orders go through, and the little possibility that there is for adequate discussion, and knows too that a discussion on the Floor of this House is not the same as a careful investigation by persons who are to have representations made to them, to go into the details of these trades, and
|Division No. 72.]||AYES.||[2.14 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mender, Geoffrey le M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Bernays, Robert||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Briant, Frank||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Harris, Sir Percy||Price, Gabriel|
|Cove, William G.||Hicks, Ernest George||Thorne, William James|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Hirst, George Henry||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Dagger, George||Holdsworth, Herbert||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Janner, Barnett||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, Rt. Han. George||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson, John James|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Lunn, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Mr. John and Mr. Groves.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Aibery, Irving James||Chalmers, John Rutherford||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'j. W.)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)||Gluckstein, Louis Halle|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Chotzner, Alfred James||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Christie, James Archibald||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Clayton, Dr. George C.||Greases-Lord, Sir Waiter|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Colfox, Major William Philip||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Colville, Major David John||Grimston, R. V.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cook, Thomas A.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cooke, James D.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Cooper, A. Duff||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Craven-Ellis, William||Hales, Harold K.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Crooke, J. Smedley||Hammersley, Samuel S.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hanley, Dennis A.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)||Crossley, A. C.||Hartland, George A.|
|Blindell, James||Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||Heneage, Lieut.-Coionel Arthur P.|
|Borodale, Viscount||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hillman, Dr. George B.|
|Boulton, W. W.||Denville, Alfred||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer|
|Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Dickle, John P.||Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Donner, P. W.||Hare-Belisha, Leslie|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Doran, Edward||Hornby, Frank|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Drewe, Cedric||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Duckworth. George A. V.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Duggan, Hubert John||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Burghley, Lord||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)|
|Burnett, John George||Emmott, Charles E. G, C.||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Kimball, Lawrence|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Everard, W. Lindsay||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
§ to have all the relevant facts before them. I think that the fact that the Government have refused this Amendment is a pretty good indication of the attitude which they have shown all through these discussions, that they have no real intention of seeing either that the consumer is protected or that industry is carried on efficiently and economically. They simply intend to ladle out the money of the consumers to a number of particular interests.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 39; Noes, 234.
|Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||North, Captain Edward T.||Spears, Brigadler-General Edward L.|
|Leech, Dr. J. W.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.|
|Lewis, Oswald||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)|
|Liddall, Walter S.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Stones, James|
|Lindsay, Noel Ker||Palmer, Francis Noel||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Pearson, William G.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Llewellin, Major John J.||Peat, Charles U.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)||Penny, Sir George||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Perkins, Walter R. D.||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)||Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,s.)|
|Lovat-Fracer, James Alexander||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Templeton, William P.|
|Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|McKie, John Hamilton||Ramsden, E.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Maitland, Adam||Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Rentoul Sir Gervals S.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Robinson, John Roland||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Marjoribanks, Edward||Ropner, Colonel L.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Marsden, Commander Arthur||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Runge, Norah Cecil||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Millar, Sir James Duncan||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Scone, Lord||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Womersley, Walter James|
|Moreing, Adrian C.||Smiles, Lieut.-Col, Sir Walter D.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Morrison, William Shephard||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Muirhead, Major A. J.||Somervell, Donald Bradley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward|
|Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Soper, Richard||and Major George Davies.|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Southby, Commander Archlbaid R. J.|
§ Mr. AMERY
I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after the word "rate," to insert the words:and with such rate of preference.The object of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Government what their intention is with regard to Preference in regard to the additional duties. As the Clause stands, there is no reference to the matter, and we are left in darkness as to whether the idea is that no Preference at all is to be given in connection with these duties, or, on the other hand, whether duties shall be charged on Empire products, which may, in certain cases, be going further than the case warrants. The Amendment leaves it to the Committee to suggest what shall be the appropriate rate of Preference, taking into account the conditions in industry here and also the general Preferential policy of His Majesty's Government, and any agreement as to future rates of Preference which may be arrived at at Ottawa.
It might be possible, by inserting an Amendment in Sub-section (3) somewhere about line 42, to leave the fixing of the rate of duties to the Treasury, the Treasury being guided by general principles of policy as well as by any specific 2040 agreement that has been made. It does seem that in one form or other this matter of Preference ought to be made clear on the face of this Clause, unless, indeed, there are later Clauses in the Measure which cover the point, and I confess that, from my reading of the Bill, I have not noticed any such provision. At any rate, I think it is desirable that the Committee should know what the view of the Government is with regard to Preference, and not only the House, but the world outside, and, more particularly, the Dominions and Colonies affected.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not consider it discourteous if I reply to him on behalf of the Government. He wishes to put in the hands of the Advisory Committee a matter that has been deliberately excluded from their purview as being one of high State policy, namely, the rate of preference. Consequently, the Advisory Committee is not concerned with that matter at all. But if my right hon. Friend will look at Clause 4, he will see that the subject which he has raised is fully dealt with. In the first place, as far as the Dominions 2041 are concerned, neither the general ad valorem duty nor the additional duty is to be chargeable at all until 15th November. In the second place, he will see in Sub-section (3) a provision relating to the period after 15th November, and he will find that at any time after that date the Treasury may direct thatthe general ad valorem duty or any additional duty or both such duties shall not be chargeable or shall be chargeable only at some specified rate less than the full rate, and where any such order is made, the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.Therefore, I think that the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is fully covered, and that it is not intended to leave this matter to the discretion of the Committee, but to the discretion of the Government.
§ Mr. MANDER
I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:The Committee, in recommending an additional duty of customs in respect of goods to which this sub-section applies shall satisfy itself—I think that it would be convenient if I referred also to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), in page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
- (a) that the standard rate of wages is paid and the recognised hours of work observed;
- (b) that the industry is efficiently organised both on a national scale and in individual factories;
- (c) that adequate facilities exist for joint consultation by employers and employed in the conduct of the industry through joint industrial councils, works councils, and similar machinery."(2) The Committee, in recommending an additional duty of customs in respect of goods to which sub-section (1) of this section applies, shall prescribe that such duty shall not become operative until a satisfactory scheme has been laid before the Committee by representatives of that industry, ensuring that any increase in its profits, accruing after the duty shall have been imposed shall be equitably divided between shareholders in the industry and the wage-earners employed therein, through schemes of co-partnership, profit-sharing, or similar methods.
§ 2.30 p.m.
§ Mr. MANDER
In this Amendment I am raising a matter of vital importance to the whole future of the scheme. Unless we are able to give some guidance to the Advisory Committee and lay down certain definite lines on which they are to proceed, there is the gravest danger of the scheme working out in a way that would be disastrous to the country. Nothing could be worse than the idea that all that will happen is that tariff walls will be erected beneath which manufacturers can lie down and slumber. That would be the end of this country as a first-class Power. A large number of Members on the Conservative benches are anxious to make this a creative and constructive scheme, which will insist on a measure of efficiency as the price of any protection that is given. In the Amendment I deal with three specific points on which the Advisory Committee should be satisfied. The first is that the standard rate of wages should be paid and that the recognised hours of work observed before protection is given. It will be fairly recognised that it will be unreasonable to give protection to any particular trade which is so bady organised that the standard rate of wages is not paid. There is no intention here of interfering in the negotiations or controlling the rates of wages, but only of saying that they should be agreed upon in the ordinary way through joint industrial councils and trade union negotiations before protection is given. I know cases where joint industrial councils have agreed on a rate, and certain bad employers will not pay it; and the Committee should be in a position to tell the trade that they cannot have any hope of success in approaching the Committee unless they can satisfy the Committee that they are so organised in the industry that whatever is recognised as the fair rate of wages is paid throughout the industry. The same should apply to the question of hours. The Amendment also lays down that the Committee should be satisfied that the industry is efficiently organised on a national scale and in individual factories. I feel that the words in their present form may not quite meet the case, and that it may be desirable to add "that the industry is likely to be efficiently organised," because 2043 there are certain cases where industries are waiting for protection in order to raise the finance which will enable them efficiently to organise themselves. It is vital that protection should not be made an excuse for sitting down and doing nothing, and the state of inadaptability to new circumstances in which too many of our manufacturers are should be in no way encouraged. Very often it happens that when it is proposed that a particular industry should be dealt with, either nationally or internationally, it is found to be so badly organised on the employing side that effective steps cannot be taken. The Committee should be satisfied that any industry that approaches them should be nationally organised, and that the individual factories too should be efficiently organised, have efficient management, up-to-date plant, and everything of that kind.
The third point in the Amendment is of great importance. It deals with the human side, and lays down that there ought to exist in any industry before protection is given effective machinery for allowing the employ és to have the right of consultation with the employers in order that they may know what is going on and be made to feel that they are partners, not only in the conduct of the business, but in the profits through profit-sharing or co-partnership schemes. I speak from some experience in this matter in my own business, where we have these works councils. For the last 10 years I have been chairman of one, and I am convinced that it has been of the greatest value from the business point of view. Employ és and employers agree that it creates good will, efficiency, and improved relations and standards all round. It is as important nowadays to get the proper human atmosphere between employers and employed as it is to deal with the question of plant and organization generally. Therefore I urge that it should be laid down that the Committee, before granting or considering any protection to an industry, should be satisfied that in all these respects it is being carried on with human efficiency and up-to-date machinery.
§ Mr. HANNON
The hon. Member is giving himself unnecessary disturbance of mind over the relationship of employers and employed. He can very safely leave the question of rates of wages in industry to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are the peculiar custodians of that subject. [Interruption.] At any rate, they arrogate it to themselves. The hon. Member may be satisfied that those responsible for the conduct of trade union policy in this country will attend to the question of wages and conditions of labour. There is a great deal of foolish talk about the inefficiency of British industry. Protected industries in this country have been the most efficient of our industries. I lived for a time in the City of Bristol at the beginning of my political career. I contested a seat in that city, and felt it to be my duty to understand the circumstances under which industry was being carried on there. The tobacco industry and the cocoa industry are the most efficiently-managed industries in this country, as anybody can see.
When an hon. Gentleman like the protagonist of novel industrial organisations in Wolverhampton tells us that we cannot embark on this policy of protecting British enterprise without all these guarantees and understandings he is leading himself into a very foolish situation which does not do credit to his high intelligence. The question of setting up machinery for consultations between employers and employed has been before the House for many years. I myself was once bitten by the importance of establishing some kind of industrial machinery, and introduced a Bill to carry through such a project long before we had the advantage of the sublime wisdom of my hon. Friend; but when it came to facing realities the problem of getting organised labour on the one side and organisations of employers on the other to come to an understanding was found to be a much more difficult one than would be gathered from the light way in which the hon. Member speaks of it. It would be a great pity if the Advisory Committee, when dealing with the urgent questions which will come before them, were hampered by considerations of the kind embodied in this Amendment. What we seek from the Advisory Committee is immediate action, without delay, without 2045 embarrassments and without the strangulating conditions in these Amendments, so that we may as soon as possible get the industrial life of the country re-established on a basis on which it will bring prosperity to our people. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, who has the most intimate and accurate estimate of the value of the source from which the Amendment comes, will not accept it.
§ Mr. HICKS
In spite of the generous tribute which has been paid to us on this side by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), which we appreciate and which is very well deserved, we support the idea contained in this Amendment. We have an Amendment of our own on similar lines. In our opinion it is eminently desirable that additional duties which are recommended should be accompanied by conditions specifying that the standard rate of wages is paid. The hon. Member for Moseley says that immediate action is wanted. We are not opposed to swift action, providing the necessary guarantees are there beforehand, but sometimes action is taken before there is time to safeguard the interests concerned. It is the declared policy of the Government not only to help the unemployed but to help workers generally by this legislation, and I am sure the Government would not wish to support the imposition of protective duties where the ordinary standard rates of wages are not being paid.
Therefore I fail to see why the Government should not accept the principle of this Amendment. The language of it may not be precisely that which they would wish to see embodied in the Bill, but I do not think they could object to including some provision of this character. I am pretty confident that there are industries which ought to be stimulated into applying proper conditions of labour. To propose conditions of labour and to get them agreed upon are two very different things. To put forward conditions which would advance the standards of labour to a level which is equitable, having regard to ordinary economic conditions, nationally and internationally, is an easy matter, but it is a difficult proposition to get them recognised, and I hope the Government will see their way to incorporate provisions 2046 as to the rates of wages and the hours of labour. I particularly want to see hours of labour dealt with, as I am satisfied that there is a field in which we can make a very big contribution towards reducing the numbers of the unemployed.
As to the second point in the Amendment, I am sure that no one who is acquainted with industry will disagree with me when I say that some stimulus is necessary to ensure that our industries shall be more efficiently organised. Regarding the third point, those engaged in industry, particularly on the operative side, have accumulated a vast amount of wisdom and experience, and if they were called into consultation to give the benefit of that experience employers would find it would be to their advantage. The head of a concern are not necessarily those who are always best qualified to judge what ought to be done under certain circumstances, and while agreeing that so long as the system permits them to retain ownership they have a right eventually to decide what is to be done, I am confident they would be well advised to consult more frequently those who are engaged in the industry and get the benefit of their advice. We on this side feel that some provision ought to be introduced into the Clause which would furnish a guarantee as to wages and conditions. For the sake of their own reputation the National Government ought not to undermine their confidence among the people in this matter of wages and conditions. If the professed statement of the Government are to be taken as having a real value they ought to insert words—if the words proposed are not adequate—which will show the working people that their interests have not been overlooked.
§ Mr. LEWIS JONES
I wish to point out some of the difficulties which lie in the way of incorporating this Amendment in the Clause. Listening to the discussion on this Bill I was reminded, in view of what I considered to be the delay in passing it of a statement made in this House on one occasion by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He said that at the rate at which a certain matter was being dealt with it would become a question of a post mortem and not of a diagnosis. The proposal in the Amendment, if adopted, would cause very serious delay when the 2047 Advisory Committee were investigating the claims of an industry. Take the question of efficiency. Who will pretend that any industry will go before the Advisory Committee and expect to get protection if they feel they cannot satisfy the Committee that their industry is fairly efficiently run? It was suggested by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that before the Advisory Committee deals with any claim for consideration, they shall be satisfied that the industry, not only on a national basis, but each individual unit, is efficiently organised; both on a national scale and in the individual factories. [Interruption.] The hon. Member now adds the words "in general", but the Amendment does not contain them. I was wondering how the Advisory Committee were to satisfy themselves that each particular factory in an industry was efficiently run.
To come to the question of the standard rate. The iron and steel trade may come before the Committee and put its case for some safeguarding, but we have no standard rate of wages in the steel trade, because we have half-a-dozen different districts each with a different code of wages. If you have 13 or 14 different steel districts, you have 13 or 14 different rates of pay. What is going to be the "standard rate of wages"? Some explanation was given during the discussion of this Amendment, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton means time-wages or time-rates. It is impossible for any Advisory Committee to satisfy themselves that a standard rate of wages is operating throughout the whole industry. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says "the Fair Wages Clause." Take it on the basis, then, of the Fair Wages Clause. That means in South Wales a 42-hour week in the steel works, but in another district it means 46 hours or 47 hours. Obviously, it is impossible to take a standard rate of wages or standard hours of work.
The closing words of this Amendment ask for adequate facilities for joint conciliation boards. Like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton I have a lifelong experience of joint conciliation boards. To make it a condition before the granting of safeguarding that industries should have conciliation boards and joint industrial councils is, I suggest, rather 2048 absurd. Let me give an instance. There are industries at the present time where I know there is a serious difficulty to the forming of joint industrial councils, not on the employers' side, but because of jealousy between the trade unions in that industry. One of the best known of the unions in the steel trade lays it down as a definite condition that they will not meet the employers across a table in company with any other union in the steel trade.
It is a difficult situation. If the iron and steel trade goes forward to this Advisory Committee to make out our case, we can prove that we pay the finest wages of any steel industry in the world, and that we are working shorter hours than any steel industry in the world, but we cannot prove that we have a joint industrial council, because the principal trade unions refuse to go to arbitration on any question in dispute. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Amendment says 'similar machinery'."] Yes, but "similar machinery" is not an all-inclusive phrase. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) will know that the principal unions in the steel trade in South Wales still refuse to meet his organisation at the same table with the employers in South Wales. The suggestions in this Amendment make the whole scheme absolutely unworkable. I suggest to the Committee that it should consider this matter very carefully, as the Amendment seems to be one more deliberate attempt to wreck the whole Bill.
§ Mr. MOLSON
Some of us are very much concerned, when an industry is being given special assistance in the form of tariffs, that some quid pro quo should be given by that industry, and should it be true, as an hon. Member suggested, that British industry is so completely efficient, there will be no difficulty at all in meeting the requirements that have been laid down. I would like to point out the importance of making certain, when the tariff board is being set up, that no industries are to be kept going in this country by means of a tariff when they are themselves unsuitable to this country. It is nothing new for a country that is adopting a tariff policy to lay down certain requirements of this kind.
I should like to refer to the Indian Tariff Board, which has been a very remarkable success. There has been extra- 2049 ordinarily little criticism of the Indian Tariff Board, and that I think is to a large extent because the Tariff Board is required to answer three questions in the affirmative before it makes any recommendation to the Government to impose a duty. It is required to make certain that the industry—and I am quoting from the principles laid down by the Indian Fiscal Commission:must be one possessing natural advantages, such as an abundant supply of raw material, a sufficient supply of labour or a large home market…. The natural advantages possessed by an Indian industry should be analysed carefully, in order to ensure as far as possible that no industry is protected which will become a permanent burden upon the community. The industry must be one which without the help of protection either is not likely to develop at all or is not likely to develop as rapidly as is desirable in the interests of the country. The industry must be one which will eventually be able to face world competition without protection. The protection we contemplate is a temporary protection to be given to industries which will eventually be able to stand alone.I should like our protective tariff to be on a temporary basis, but I realise that the Government could not accept any suggestion of that kind because it has already rejected it when it was put forward by the Home Secretary. We must recognise that conditions in this country are very different from conditions in India. Those who are supporting tariffs here are doing so because they think that a tonic is necessary for old industries which are very sick, whereas in India the tariffs were introduced in order to give assistance to Indian industries. While recognising that difference, I urge that the general principle applies to this country as much as it does to India. We do not desire to give assistance to any industry unless we can be certain that it has organised itself as efficiently as is possible, or that it has given some guarantee that, in return for the protection, it will organise itself efficiently. Secondly—and this is a slightly different point, but I think it may be said to be covered by the word "efficiency"—we must ask whether it is an industry which is really suited to this country.
We have at the present time an industry, the sugar-beet industry, which is a pensioner at the cost of the taxpayer. I hope that the work of the 2050 Advisory Committee will not result in any industries which are better dead being kept alive as pensioners at the cost of the consumer. It is not the case of my friends and myself that there is anything in this Bill which prevents the Advisory Committee from insisting upon these requirements, and using these tariffs as an instrument for insisting that British industry shall reorganise itself And make itself efficient; but I think we have now a very great opportunity of laying down the actual requirements in the wording of the Statute, so that the British Advisory Committee may be as valuable in insisting upon efficiency in industry as the Indian Tariff Board has proved itself to be in India.
§ Mr. BOOTHBY
This Amendment raises the vital question of the terms of reference of this Advisory Committee. I do not associate myself with the Amendment; I think that the Government are bound to reject it; and, therefore, I am afraid I must tell the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that I am not going to support it in the Division Lobby. At the same time, as this is the only opportunity that we are likely to have of discussing what seems to me to be possibly the most important question raised by the Bill, namely, what are to be the functions of the Committee and what are to be its terms of reference, I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is going to reply, whether he contemplates that the permanent functions of this Committee are to be merely judicial, and not constructive? I am bound to say I hope that that is not what is in the mind of the Government as a permanent measure.
A good deal of nonsense is talked about the rationalisation of industry. It has undoubtedly been carried too far in many countries—in Germany and, in certain particular instances, in the United States. But, at the same time, I am more convinced than ever that sooner or later the House of Commons and the country will have to face up to the necessity for the national planning of industry, and ultimately for the Imperial planning of industry. Indeed, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it has been a cardinal point in the policy of the party to which I belong that what is called Imperial rationalisation of industry should be carried out as soon as possible. In 2051 this Bill there lay an opportunity for giving to the committee which is to be set up instructions in general terms to carry out, along broad and constructive lines, this more or less constructive policy, and it is rather unfortunate that, so far as we can see, the intentions of the Government at the moment are that the work of the committee shall be merely judicial and not constructive.
To say that, if an instruction were given to the Committee to take into consideration, for example, the efficiency of an industry which was to receive protection, or the necessity for the economic development of the British Empire, that would be Socialism, seems to me to be utter nonsense. It is not Socialism. It is, I grant, the intervention of the State in industry, but what is a tariff at all but that; and who sincerely claims today that it is possible to conduct industry in a great industrial country like this without intervention at almost every stage by the State, and without the general assistance and protection of the State? Of course, it is not possible. I observed last night that on a similar Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) made an impassioned speech in which he said that any proposal to give to the Committee rather wider powers than are at present accorded to it is under the Bill was Socialism. I say that it widens the functions of the Committee, but that it is very much less Socialism than was, for example, the Coal Mines Bill, of which my hon. Friend was one of the most fervent supporters, and that it is a much more beneficial type of State intervention than was contemplated under that Measure. To my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who said that British industry was efficient, I would say that no one denies that in certain respects it is very efficient. No one would deny that it is capable of being made more efficient than the industry of any other country in the world. But I do not think we are going to get any further by going about and saying that we are the most efficient and perfect people, so far as industrial organisation and development are concerned, that the world has ever seen. It is not in all cases the fact, and it is not the way to obtain prosperity. It is no use assuming that you are the best in the 2052 world, because it does not necessarily follow that you are. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not so very long ago that neither the coal industry nor the iron and steel industry was capable of entering into negotiations in an international conference, because neither had a single soul who could speak on its behalf. The situation has changed now, but up to a very short time ago it was true to say that neither the coal industry nor the iron and steel industry was competent to speak in an international conference. I do not think that that is a very high test of efficiency.
What we are suffering from to-day as much as anything else is the disorderly and haphazard growth of our industrial system during the 19th century, and that is the cause of a great deal of our troubles—the fact that there was no planning, no direction, no long-term organisation; and some of us on this side are anxious to secure that that shall not happen again, and that our descendants shall not be burdened with unnecessary difficulties, as we are to-day, because our grandfathers did not trouble to think ahead when they were developing in the 19th century. I should like to see some reference made in this Bill, as a general instruction to the Committee, to the necessity for achieving industrial efficiency, because I believe it is not impugning at all the efficiency of individual industries to say that it is impossible for any industry at the present time, without the constructive assistance of this Advisory Committee, to achieve the maximum of efficiency in industry. It is impossible for any industry in this country to organise itself on a national scale and in the right quarters without the assistance of a general and central authority such as this Advisory Committee can be developed into.
The President of the Board of Trade knows of the wastage that is going on in this country—the great development and expansion of industries that is going on in what I may call virgin industrial areas, while we have in the North and in the Midlands large tracts of country equipped with every facility for the conduct of industry, both social and mechanical, gradually being allowed to sink into ruin. At the same time, you cannot expect any individual industry in this country so to organise itself on a national plan as to conduce to the efficient conduct, not only 2053 of that industry, but of the industries of the country as a whole, and I think that the Government are to some extent missing an opportunity in not giving a definite instruction to this Advisory Committee to assist industries as a whole to develop themselves in a way which will benefit, not only themselves, but the country as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman will find that one of the most urgent necessities of the moment is, not to increase efficiency of industries, but to increase the facilities which will be accorded to them by the banks. Joint stock banks at the present moment stand to a great extent in the way of the rationalisation and reconstruction of individual industries in this country, as all hon. Members who are connected with industry know. Here is another field, another area, in which this Advisory Committee might help industry to reorganise itself by getting joint stock banks into co-operation, and constructing a plan which would involve tariff protection to enable them to do so.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to assure the Advisory Committee that this is only the first phase in the general tariff protection of this country, that this is still an emergency Measure to deal with an emergency situation, and that the only objective which the Government have now is to get tariff protection on to these industries as quickly as possible, and then to consider the second phase, I think we should be satisfied. If, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tried to make out, this Bill in the opinion of the Government contains sufficient safeguards with regard to Imperial developments in itself and is to be regarded as a permanent Measure, I do not think many hon. Members on this side or on any side of the Committee will be completely satisfied.
The Prime Minister only the other day said it was possible to have a tariff with a constructive industrial effect. I believe that is true. He repeated in a later speech that he hoped the House of Commons would see that the industries that received tariff protection were to be efficient. When we try to secure any provision of that kind, we are told it is entirely unnecessary. If the Government think they are going to get away with a permanent measure protecting British industry without any instruction to the Committee to secure its efficiency or to develop an a constructive line the 2054 economic co-operation and unity of the British Empire, they will not get away with it, because the House in the long run will not stand it, but if he tells us this is merely the first phase of an extensive long-term protective policy in which the application of a scientific tariff as a constructive industrial effect is going to follow, I think we shall see that the emergency and the urgency of the present situation fully justifies the Bill as it stands.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I should not have intervened had it not been for the observations of two hon. Members on my left. What surprises me is that they have been speaking in favour of an Amendment which I moved an hour ago and which went to a Division, and I did not see them in the Division Lobby in support of it. It is a remarkable thing about the present House of Commons that Conservative Members of Parliament on all sides speak in favour of our Amendments and then vote against them. They reject any pearl of wisdom that may come from us. The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) made one or two very strange observations. He said that no employer would ask for a tariff if his industry was not efficiently carried on. I wish I could believe that. I am not sure that he can believe it either, because it seems to me that very often the people whose industries are not efficiently carried on are those who ask for a protective tariff.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will understand the purpose of this Amendment. The Advisory Committee is not bound, according to the suggestion made, to see that all these things are done. That is not their duty. But they must take into account whether they are done, and I appeal to Members in every section of the House that something must be done to prevent the very bad conditions that still prevail in some industries. I made inquiries very recently into the women's garment industry in the East End of London. I understand that duties are to be put on those commodities. There are about 10,000 tailors employed in that trade in the East End. Some of them, because piece rates have been reduced, are employed for seven days a week for 12 hours a day, with never a day's stop. The position has arisen owing to this. 2055 I speak with authority on behalf of the trade union concerned. The piece rates used to work out as follows. A garment might be sold in the West End of London for, say, five or six guineas. The tailor got a shilling for making it up. It worked out at the rate of 1s. each, but now, owing to the depression, the workers are offered 9s. 6d. a dozen for making up. Because the piece rates have been reduced, these men work all the hours they can in order to make the same wages for such long hours as they did in the shorter working week. That is the case in regard to the garment workers in the East End of London. The Amendment would, in fact, bring us to the stage that that industry would not be protected under the Bill unless it paid the recognised rates of wages and observed the recognised hours of labour, and 48 hours a week is the maximum. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is foreign competition that has brought it down!"] The hon. Gentleman really must remember, and if he cares to inquire he will find, that, on the whole, the conditions of labour in this country are better than those which obtain in any country in Europe. But there are conditions of labour in this country in some cases which are as bad as, or even worse than, those in any country in Europe. It is to these extraordinarily bad cases that we must devote attention.
If the right hon. Gentleman can accept any form of words—and I feel sure that he will see the reasonableness of the case I am putting—to the effect that no industry which sweats its workpeople, and which does things which no Member of this House of Commons would uphold for a moment, will be protected, we shall be pleased. I have sufficient faith in the common sense and humanity of every Member of the House to say that not one of us would be willing to see cases like this extended. A girl of 19 years of age in the East End of London worked 40 hours a week in the garment industry and was paid 2s. 6d. for the 40 hours. The employer was brought before the Court for violating Trade Board rates, and was fined heavily, as he deserved. Surely, if we can do anything by adopting the Amendment, or any words to the same effect in order to protect these people, the House of Commons will have performed a great duty indeed.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) upon having initiated a Debate of great interest, but I am compelled to remind him that this is an Import Duties Bill and not a Bill for dealing in detail with hours of work, rates of wages and conditions in particular factories. All these are matters of great importance and matters which everyone has at heart, but in the future, as in the past, it will be the function of the Legislature to deal with these matters substantively. Indeed, my hon. Friend who has just spoken called attention to the intervention of the law in regard to some violation of the Trade Boards provisions, and there is on the Statute Book, and there will increasingly be on the Statute Book, a number of Measures to deal with all these matters, and deal with them in particularity. If we tried to deal with them now, and to deal with them in the very general manner which my hon. Friend suggests, we should make it impossible for the Committee to get to work within a reasonable time.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am dealing with what my hon. Friend proposes here. He has put forward a proposal. He invites the opinion of the Government to his proposal, and I say, that in the view of the Government we are called upon to take action, and to take it immediately. If the committee has to go, or to send a body of inspectors, into every factory of the country to satisfy themselves of conditions which my hon. Friend assumes are not being observed, when does he think this system which the Government are about to establish will come into effect? Indeed, I think that my hon. Friend will admit that his object now, as it has been throughout these Debates, is a notorious one. Representing as he does lost causes, his object throughout has been to delay action.
§ Mr. MANDER
If the hon. Member says that, I must say at once that this is intended as a definitely helpful, constructive Amendment.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Then I did my hon. Friend an injustice. I thought that his object from the very beginning was to delay action on this Bill.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
Then there can be no difference of opinion between us. If he wishes to be helpful, and he realises the urgency of this problem, he could not be more helpful than by withdrawing his Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted the committee could not get to work for many months, perhaps for many years. He proposes that the committee are not to make a recommendation until they are satisfied in respect of every single firm and factory in the country that certain things which he has at heart are done. If he wishes to assist the Bill to become operative and effective he must see that he is not fulfilling that object by moving this Amendment. These are matters of State policy which the Government reserves to itself. These are not matters for a committee, such as my hon. Friend suggests.
He complains or he suggests that there may be certain factories in which proper wages are not paid. Let him leave that matter to the trade unions. The trade unions exist for the purpose of adjusting any discrepancy of that sort between the conditions in a particular factory, and general wages. Let him leave these matters to the ordinary machinery. In so far as wages are not good in this country, we do something in this Bill to create conditions under which they can become better. Every single wage earner in one of the industries that enjoys these additional duties will benefit, and certainly the firms will be helped to reorganise in the way that my hon. Friend would desire. If they abuse any of the benefits, it has been made quite plain that the benefits conferred upon them will be withdrawn. That is openly laid down in the Bill and has been repeatedly stated by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade. It is the duty of the Government and not of a committee such as this to deal with these matters. No Government would continue conferring benefits upon an industry which was a public scandal, or which failed to have regard to the interests of 2058 other consuming trades or of those whom it employed.
I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with the Amendment. I understand the objects which the hon. Member has at heart. Those objects are partly shared by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who said that it did no good for people to go about shouting that British industry was efficient. It does less good for them to go about shouting that it is inefficient. If you are going to say, for instance, to every tomato grower that he must wear a uniform before he gets protection, and be enrolled into a battalion, you are doing very much to advertise the defects of British industry. My view is that industry is as efficient in this country as conditions permit, and we are going to try to improve those conditions. We are dealing with an urgent problem and important as these questions may be this is not the occasion to deal with them.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I am a little surprised that so mulch serious attention has been devoted to this Amendment, because paragraph (a) does not mean anything, it says that the Committee shall satisfy itself:That the standard rate of wages is paid and the recognised hours of work observed.In the production of any commodity the standard hours of work and the standard rate of wages are those which are paid by the bulk of the employers in that particular industry, irrespective of whether they are good or bad. Hon. Members have based themselves on the assumption that paragraph (a) has something to do with the rate of wages paid, but the rate of wages is the standard rate whether it is good or bad and, accordingly, the Amendment has no bearing on the purpose for which it is moved. Apparently, the people who preach efficiency so often have no efficient amendment factory. And it is rather curious that it is these people who are completely indifferent to what is happening in foreign countries. I should be inclined to support the Amendment if it had been properly drafted and had contained a provision that it should only apply if a similar provision is applied in foreign countries from which these competing goods come; but the gentlemen who have always been in favour of Free Trade have never shown the slightest desire to exclude from this country the products of industries carried 2059 on abroad under conditions which we do not regard as satisfactory. This Amendment makes no recognition at all of that fact and treats with complete indifference the fact that we are subjected to unfair foreign competition.
My hon. Friends on the left, and who think on the left, spend a good deal of their time telling other people how they should run their business. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has done that for many years. I well remember him standing where I stand now and saying that what we wanted was a reorganisation of the coal mining industry on the lines of the German coal mining industry. I do not know which of these two is doing the better at the moment, but this obsession of some hon. Members, that somebody sitting in London can manage every factory and every mine much better that the people in the industry, is a delusion. If I heard this doctrine preached by people who had had any industrial experience I might be impressed. I have visited industrial establishments, connected with the industry of which I have some knowledge, in a good many countries, in the United States, France, Belgium and Holland. I have seen magnificent factories in all these countries, but I have not discovered anything which shows any outstanding merit over our own. Business men in foreign countries are not more alert, nor do they convey their wishes any quicker, except it may be when they are citizens of the United States of America when they may take rather longer to say it than our own people. I cannot understand the mentality of those people who are always crying stinking fish—I am not referring to herrings at the moment—with regard to our industries. I know what an immense amount of harm it does. Four years ago, in common with a number of Members of this House and of other Houses of Parliament in the Empire, I paid a visit to Canada, and at Montreal—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
As there is no time to consider any other Amendment I might just as well waste the time as any other hon. Member. Up to the present I certainly have not wasted anything like the percentage of time taken by either of the 2060 two hon. Members from Bethnal Green. On the occasion of this visit I was selected to address a large gathering in Montreal, and in the course of that address I frankly boasted of the efficiency of British industry, and I was justifiably boasting of its efficiency in a country where it had always been decried—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Yes. I found the utmost gratitude in Canadians who were lovers of this country, because, they said, "We are always hearing the other side." I appeal to hon. Members not to indulge in a perpetual grouse about our own inefficiency. Only give our manufacturers a reasonable degree of security and they will be able to produce efficiently.
After all this Amendment is a thoroughly inefficient Amendment because it is a limiting Amendment. If the drafters of it had only read Subsection (2) of the Clause they would have seen that the Advisory Committee is instructed to inquire into the interests generally of trade and industry, including those of trades and industries which are consumers or producers of goods. Every needed provision is there. The mere adding of the words of the Amendment to the Clause would have the effect of limiting its scope. The Advisory Committee have to take into account everything which would affect their decision. If we direct their attention in particular ways we shall leave the Committee to neglect other matters of the utmost importance. We are not now in the realm of experiment. We have had 10 years experience of safeguarding, and there is not a single safeguarded industry which has not markedly improved in efficiency. Otherwise we should have heard of it. Not even the hon. Members for Bethnal Green have ever been able to produce any evidence of lack of efficiency. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Home Secretary's speech."] I was not present when the Home Secretary made his devastating speech. I was not then a Member of the House; had I been I might have had to make some observations in reply. There would have been no particular difficulty in answering any of the observations of the Home Secretary on this subject, of which he has displayed such a manifest ignorance.
§ Sir FREDERICK MILLS
I intervene only for the purpose of referring to two observations which have been made. One is as to the iron and steel industry entering internationally with others abroad for the regulation of the industry. I myself was a member of an international committee dealing with one section of the steel trade. That was 35 years ago, and I sat on that committee until two years ago, and it is still in existence. The reason why other sections of the industry are not dealt with at the present time is that they have been subjected to the unnecessary free importation from abroad. One of the results that will be brought about by the Bill will be that for the first time the manufacturer will be able to enter into international arrangements in all sections of the steel industry. The other point I wish to mention relates to industrial councils. Many years ago I started an industrial council at Ebbw Vale, where we had 35,000 workpeople and 40 unions. The one union that declined to join, to begin with, was the Miners' Union. For some time we had to proceed with a lop-sided Industrial Council. I am convinced that if the
|Division No. 73.]||AYES.||[3.31 p.m.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Mender, Geoffrey le M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Maxton, James|
|Bernays, Robert||Hicks, Ernest George||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, George Henry||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Holdsworth, Herbert||Price, Gabriel|
|Cove, William G.||Jenkins, Sir William||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||John, William||Thorne, William James|
|Dagger, George||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Kirkwood, David||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lawson. John James|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Lunn, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Dingle Foot.|
|Groves, Thomas E.||McEntee, Valentine L.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Atbery, Irving James||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Boyce, H. Leslie||Chalmers, John Rutherford|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Chotzner, Alfred James|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Clayton, Dr. George C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Colville, Major David John|
|Balniel, Lord||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Cook, Thomas A.|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Burghley, Lord||Cooke, James D.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Courthape, Colonel Sir George L.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th,C.)||Burnett, John George||Craven-Ellis, William|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Butt, Sir Alfred||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Crooke, J. Smedley|
|Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Caine, G. R. Hall.||Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)|
|Blindeil, James||Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Crossley, A. C.|
|Borodale, Viscount||Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard|
|Boulton, W. W.||Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Sornerset,Yeovil)|
§ Amendment is insisted upon it will lead to interminable delay, and I hope the Government will resist it.
§ Mr. MACMILLAN
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade showed, what is not uncommon, the somewhat morbid enthusiasm of the recent convert and I think we should have had a much more serious discussion of the words of the proposed paragraph with regard to industrial efficiency. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), he always was a die-hard and is still a diehard. He has changed his constituency but not his views. Caelum, non animum mutat.
It being half-past Three of the Clock the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th, February, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 245.
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Kimball, Lawrence||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Denville, Alfred||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Dickie, John P.||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Donner, P. W.||Knebworth, Viscount||Robinson, John Roland|
|Doran, Edward||Knox, Sir Alfred||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Drewe, Cedric||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Lewis, Oswald||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Liddell, Waiter S.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Elmley, Viscount||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Scone, Lord|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mars)||McCorquodale, M. S.||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Soper, Richard|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McKie, John Hamilton||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Falle Sir Bertram G.||McLean, Major Alan||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|FielWen, Edward Brocklehurst||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Maitland, Adam||Stones, James|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Marjoribanks, Edward||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Mason, Cot. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Tate, Mavis Constance|
|Grimston, R. V.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Millar, Sir James Duncan||Templeton, William P.|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. R.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Mline, John Sydney Wardlaw-||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Hales, Harold K.||Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Touche, Gordon Como|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Hammersley, Samuel S.||Moreing, Adrian C.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Morrison, William Shephard||Ward, Lt-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Hartland, George A.||Moss, Captain H. J.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Hillman, Dr. George B.||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fid)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Hope Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Hare-Belisha, Leslie||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Hornby, Frank||Palmer, Francis Noel||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Howard, Tom Forrest||Pearson, William G.||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Peat, Charles U.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Penny, Sir George||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Perkins, Waiter R. D.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Poawnall, Sir Assheton||Womersley, Walter James|
|Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Procter, Major Henry Adam||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsvorth, C.)||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ker, J. Campbell||Ramsden, E.||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Austin Hudson.|
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.
|Division No. 741]||AYES.||[3.40 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Balniel, Lord||Borodale, Viscount|
|Albery, Irving James||Barrie, Sir Charles Cougar||Boulton, W. W.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart|
|Allen, William (Stoke.on-Trent)||Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Porism'th,C.)||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton|
|Amery, Rt, Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman||Boyce, H. Leslie|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Blindell, James||Briscoe, Capt. Richard George|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Boothby, Robert John Graham||Brocklebank, C. E. R.|
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 40.
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hartland, George A.||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Hene. Lieut.-Col) nel Arthur P.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Burnett, John George||Hillman, Dr. George B.||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Caine, G. R. Hall-||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Hornby, Frank||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Howard, Torn Forrest||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Rentoul Sir Gervals S.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Robinson, John Roland|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hurd, Percy A.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Chalmers, John Rutherford||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)||Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Chotzner. Alfred James||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynomouth)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Ker, J. Campbell||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Colville, Major David John||Kin bail, Lawrence||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cooke, James D.||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Knebworth, Viscount||Scone, Lord|
|Craven-Ellis, William||Knox, Sir Alfred||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Smith, SIr Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lewis, Oswald||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Locker-Lampson, Corn. O.(Handsw'th)||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Denville, Alfred||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)|
|Dickie, John P.||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Stones, James|
|Donner, P. W.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Strauss, Edward A.|
|Doran, Edward||MacAndrew, Mal. C. G. (Partick)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Drewe, Cedric||McCorquodale, M. S.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (l. of W.)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Duggan, Hubert John||McKie, John Hamilton||Tate. Mavis Constance|
|Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)||McLean, Major Alan||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Templeton, William P.|
|Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Macmillan, Maurice Harold||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Maitland, Adam||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Maklns, Brigadler-General Ernest||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Marqesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Marjoribanks, Edward||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Millar, Sir James Duncan||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Glucksteln, Louis Halle||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Moreind, Adrian C||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Morrison, William Shephard||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Moss, Captain H. J.||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Grltten, W. G. Howard||Muirhead, Major A. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Womersley, Walter James|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Nicholson, Rt. Hn, W. G. (Petersf'id)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Hales, Harold K.||O'Neill, Rt, Hon. Sir Hugh||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Hall, Lieut.-Cot. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Palmer, Francis Noel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hammersley, Samuel S.||Pearson, William G.||Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.|
|Hanley, Dennis A.||Peat, Charles U.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Harris, Sir Percy|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hicks, Ernest George|
|Batey, Joseph||Edwards, Charles||Hirst, George Henry|
|Bernays, Robert||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Holdsworth, Herbert|
|Briant, Frank||Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||Jenkins, Sir William|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Cove, William G.||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Kirkwood, David|
|Daggar, George||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lawson, John James||Nathan, Major H. L.||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)|
|Macdonald, Gordo'l (Ince)||Parkinson, John Allen||Thorne, William James|
|McEntee, Valentine L.||Price, Gabriel||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Rea, Walter Russell||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Salter, Dr, Alfred|
|Maxton, James||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. John and Mr. Groves.|
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson]
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.2068
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
§ Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Four o'Clock until Monday next, 22nd February.